On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 02:59:57PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> In order to ease its re-use in other code paths, refactor
> stage2_map_set_prot_attr() to not depend on a stage2_map_data struct.
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 8e7059fcfd40..8aa01a9e2603 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -494,8 +494,7 @@ u64 kvm_get_vtcr(u64 mmfr0, u64 mmfr1, u32 phys_shift)
> return vtcr;
> }
>
> -static int stage2_map_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
> - struct stage2_map_data *data)
> +static kvm_pte_t stage2_get_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> {
> bool device = prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE;
> kvm_pte_t attr = device ? PAGE_S2_MEMATTR(DEVICE_nGnRE) :
> @@ -504,15 +503,15 @@ static int stage2_map_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
>
> if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_NONE) {
> if (prot != KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_NONE)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
Hmm, does the architecture actually say that having all these attributes
as 0 is illegal? If not, I think it would be better to keep the int return
code and replace the 'data' parameter with a pointer to a kvm_pte_t.
Does that work?
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
