Hi Gavin,
On 1/13/22 8:02 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> 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;
> }
at least you can use an inline function taking the vcpu as param?
Thanks
Eric
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
