Hi Oliver, On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:26 PM Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > FEAT_SVE is already masked by the fixed configuration for > ID_AA64PFR0_EL1; don't try and mask it at runtime. > > No functional change intended. > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, /fuad > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c > index 33f5181af330..3f5d7bd171c5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c > @@ -90,9 +90,6 @@ static u64 get_pvm_id_aa64pfr0(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > u64 set_mask = 0; > u64 allow_mask = PVM_ID_AA64PFR0_ALLOW; > > - if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu)) > - allow_mask &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64PFR0_SVE); > - > set_mask |= get_restricted_features_unsigned(id_aa64pfr0_el1_sys_val, > PVM_ID_AA64PFR0_RESTRICT_UNSIGNED); > > -- > 2.36.0.512.ge40c2bad7a-goog > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
