On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 22:08:15 +0000, Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:25:04PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > [...] > > > > @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static void kvm_prepare_system_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 type) > > > * re-initialized. > > > */ > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) > > > - tmp->arch.power_off = true; > > > + tmp->arch.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_STOPPED; > > > kvm_make_all_cpus_request(vcpu->kvm, KVM_REQ_SLEEP); > > > > > > memset(&vcpu->run->system_event, 0, sizeof(vcpu->run->system_event)); > > > > You also may want to initialise the mp_state to RUNNABLE by default in > > kvm_arch_vcpu_create(). We are currently relying on power_off to be > > false thanks to the vcpu struct being zeroed, but we may as well make > > it clearer (RUNNABLE is also 0, so there is no actual bug here). > > We unconditionally initialize power_off in > kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_vcpu_init(), and do the same in this patch for mp_state, > depending on if KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF is set. Ah, I missed that. Thanks for the heads up. > Any objections to leaving that as-is? I can move the RUNNABLE case into > kvm_arch_vcpu_create() as you've suggested, too. No, that's just a brain fart on my part. Leave it as is. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
