Hi Gavin,
On 1/13/22 8:13 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Shannon,
>
> On 1/13/22 3:02 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> oops... sorry. Please ignore my previous reply. I thought you talk about
> the check on the SDEI event number wrongly. Yes, you're correct that the
> check should be moved to kvm_sdei_hypercall().
even better than my previous proposal then
Eric
>
> 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
