On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:21:15PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:41 AM Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > A subsequent change to KVM will introduce a vCPU request that could > > result in an exit to userspace. Change check_vcpu_requests() to return a > > value and document the function. Unconditionally return 1 for now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > index 7c297ddc8177..8eed0556ccaa 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > @@ -648,7 +648,16 @@ void kvm_vcpu_wfi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > preempt_enable(); > > } > > > > -static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +/** > > + * check_vcpu_requests - check and handle pending vCPU requests > > + * @vcpu: the VCPU pointer > > + * > > + * Return: 1 if we should enter the guest > > + * 0 if we should exit to userspace > > + * <= 0 if we should exit to userspace, where the return value indicates > > + * an error > > Nit: Shouldn't "<= 0" be "< 0" ? It definitely should. I'll fold this in to the next spin. -- Thanks, Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
