On Wednesday 03 Feb 2021 at 15:58:32 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:15:21PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Refactor __populate_fault_info() to introduce __get_fault_info() which > > will be used once the host is wrapped in a stage 2. > > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h | 36 +++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > index 84473574c2e7..e9005255d639 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > @@ -157,19 +157,9 @@ static inline bool __translate_far_to_hpfar(u64 far, u64 *hpfar) > > return true; > > } > > > > -static inline bool __populate_fault_info(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +static inline bool __get_fault_info(u64 esr, u64 *far, u64 *hpfar) > > Could this take a pointer to a struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info instead? The disr_el1 field will be unused in this case, but yes, that should work. Cheers, Quentin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
