On Thursday 04 Mar 2021 at 20:03:36 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> 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?
Hmm, that's a good point, that might not be the case. I assumed we would
have no use for this, but there we can easily avoid the restriction
so...
> 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?
I think so yes, I'll fix it up.
Cheers,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
