On 28/03/17 13:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:03:37PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> There is a lot of duplication in the pmu_*_el0_disabled helpers,
>> and as we're going to modify them shortly, let's move all the
>> common stuff in a single function.
>>
>> No functionnal change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 25 +++++++++++--------------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> index 0e26f8c2b56f..7e1d673304d5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> @@ -460,35 +460,32 @@ static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
>> vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = val;
>> }
>>
>> -static bool pmu_access_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +static bool check_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 flags)
>> {
>> u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0);
>> + bool cond = (reg & flags) || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu);
>
> nit: I would call this variable 'enabled' and then return !enabled to
> make it clear what's going on.
>
> (If you agree, I can fix this up when applying along with the typo and
> rename pointed out by Suzuki).
Yup, that'd be absolutely fine.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
