On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:08:32 +0000,
Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In order to cover Marc's concern, I would introduce a different helper
> kvm_vgic_save_its_tables_in_progress(), which simply returns
> 'bool struct vgic_dist::save_its_tables_in_progress'. The newly added
> field is set and cleared in vgic_its_ctrl(). All these changes will be
> folded to PATCH[v7 6/9]. Oliver and Marc, could you please let me know
> if the changes sounds good?
>
> static int vgic_its_ctrl(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, u64 attr)
> {
> const struct vgic_its_abi *abi = vgic_its_get_abi(its);
> struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
> int ret = 0;
> :
> switch (attr) {
> case KVM_DEV_ARM_ITS_CTRL_RESET:
> vgic_its_reset(kvm, its);
> break;
> case KVM_DEV_ARM_ITS_SAVE_TABLES:
> dist->save_its_tables_in_progress = true;
> ret = abi->save_tables(its);
> dist->save_its_tables_in_progress = false;
> break;
> case KVM_DEV_ARM_ITS_RESTORE_TABLES:
> ret = abi->restore_tables(its);
> break;
> }
> :
> }
Yes, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. This should make the
whole patch rather trivial, and you could implement
kvm_arch_allow_write_without_running_vcpu() as returning this flag.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
