On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:05:35PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
>> This implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() for ARM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> index 862f820..b9f68e4 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> @@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
>>
>> bool kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> - return false;
>> + return vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu);
>> }
>>
>> /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>>
> I'm not taking any position on whether this series makes sense overall
> or not (it's a bit concerning to do this without having measured a
> benefit), but for the arm/arm64 change:
oh, sorry, strike that, I didn't notice you had added performance
results in the cover letter.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
>
> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx>
