On Saturday 16 Oct 2021 at 12:04:15 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote: > I actually ended-up implementing a similar patch as part of my 'first > run' series[1], though I moved the mapping to the point where we > finalise the vcpu as that's where the allocation takes place. > > Do you see any potential issue with that approach? Nope, and in fact I think your patch should allow to simplify a bit kvm_arm_vcpu_destroy() for me, as checking arch.sve_state != NULL would now be sufficient to know if the sve state has been shared -- checking arch.has_run_once is no longer needed. I'll base v2 on this. Thanks! Quentin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
