On 07/05/14 16:34, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 May 2014 16:20, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> pm_fake doesn't quite describe what the handler does (ignoring writes >> and returning 0 for reads). >> >> As we're about to use it (a lot) in a different context, rename it >> with a (admitedly cryptic) name that make sense for all users. > >> -/* >> - * We could trap ID_DFR0 and tell the guest we don't support performance >> - * monitoring. Unfortunately the patch to make the kernel check ID_DFR0 was >> - * NAKed, so it will read the PMCR anyway. >> - * >> - * Therefore we tell the guest we have 0 counters. Unfortunately, we >> - * must always support PMCCNTR (the cycle counter): we just RAZ/WI for >> - * all PM registers, which doesn't crash the guest kernel at least. >> - */ >> -static bool pm_fake(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> - const struct sys_reg_params *p, >> - const struct sys_reg_desc *r) >> +static bool trap_wi_raz(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> + const struct sys_reg_params *p, >> + const struct sys_reg_desc *r) > > The standard term for this is "RAZ/WI", not "WI/RAZ", so > why not "trap_raz_wi" ? Good point. I'll update it. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
