On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:55 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 6/18/22 02:16, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Consolidate the code for making and getting ucalls. All architectures pass > > > the ucall struct via memory, so filling and copying the struct is 100% > > > generic. The only per-arch code is sending and receiving the address of > > > said struct. > > > > > > Tested on x86 and arm, compile tested on s390 and RISC-V. > > > > I'm not sure about doing this yet. The SEV tests added multiple > > implementations of the ucalls in one architecture. I have rebased those > > recently (not the SEV part) to get more familiar with the new kvm_vcpu API > > for selftests, and was going to look at your old review next... > > I had forgotten about that code. My idea of a per-VM list[*] would fit nicely on > top, though maybe drop the last patch from this series. > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yc4gcJdhxthBKUUd@xxxxxxxxxx I just sent an RFC of SEV selftesting using Sean's suggestion built on the first 2 patches in this series. I think they work well with the encrypted VMs ucalling. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220715192956.1873315-1-pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx/ _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
