Hi Shannon,
On 1/11/22 5:43 PM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
On 2021/8/15 8:13, Gavin Shan wrote:
+static unsigned long kvm_sdei_hypercall_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
+ struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei;
+ struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
+ struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs *regs;
+ unsigned long index = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu);
+ unsigned long ret = SDEI_SUCCESS;
+
+ /* Sanity check */
+ if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
+ ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
+ goto out;
+ }
Maybe we could move these common sanity check codes to kvm_sdei_hypercall to save some lines.
Not all hypercalls need this check. For example, COMPLETE/COMPLETE_RESUME/CONTEXT don't
have SDEI event number as the argument. If we really want move this check into function
kvm_sdei_hypercall(), we would have code like below. Too much duplicated snippets will
be seen. I don't think it's better than what we have if I fully understand your comments.
switch (...) {
case REGISTER:
if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
break;
}
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_register(vcpu);
break;
case UNREGISTER:
if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
break;
}
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_unregister(vcpu);
break;
case CONTEXT:
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_context(vcpu);
break;
:
}
Thanks,
Gavin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
