Christoffer Dall writes: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:14:51PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Christoffer Dall writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:55:12PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> To cleanly restore an SMP VM we need to ensure that the current pause >> >> state of each vcpu is correctly recorded. Things could get confused if >> >> the CPU starts running after migration restore completes when it was >> >> paused before it state was captured. >> >> >> <snip> >> >> +/* Power state (PSCI), not real registers */ >> >> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI (0x0014 << KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT) >> >> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_REG(n) \ >> >> + (KVM_REG_ARM64 | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI | \ >> >> + (n & ~KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_MASK)) >> > >> > I don't understand this mask, why isn't this >> > (n & 0xffff)) >> >> I was trying to use the existing masks, but of course if anyone changes >> that it would be an ABI change so probably not worth it. >> > > the KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_MASK is part of the uapi IIRC, so that's not the > issue, but that mask doesn't cover all the upper bits, so it feels weird > to use that to me. Yeah I missed that. I could do a: #define KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_INDEX_MASK ((1<<KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT)-1) and use that. I'm generally try to avoid hardcoded numbers but I could be being a little OCD here ;-) >> > Can you add the 32-bit counterpart as part of this patch? >> >> Same patch? Sure. > > really up to you if you want to split it up into two patches, but I > think it's small enough that you can just create one patch. Given the similarity of this code between arm and arm64 I'm wondering if it's worth doing a arch/arm/kvm/guest_common.c or something to reduce the amount of copy paste stuff? -- Alex Bennée -- 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
