From: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@xxxxxxx> Comment about how PMU access is handled is not relavant since v4.6 where proper PMU support was added in. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@xxxxxxx> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c index b0b225c..af5ea86 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c @@ -823,14 +823,6 @@ static bool access_pmuserenr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p, * Architected system registers. * Important: Must be sorted ascending by Op0, Op1, CRn, CRm, Op2 * - * 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. - * * Debug handling: We do trap most, if not all debug related system * registers. The implementation is good enough to ensure that a guest * can use these with minimal performance degradation. The drawback is -- 2.9.0 -- 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
