On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 01:07:21PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > VHE kernels run completely in EL2 and therefore don't have a notion of > kernel and hyp addresses, they are all just kernel addresses. Therefore > don't call kern_hyp_va() in the VHE switch function. Isn't this an example of avoidable forkage? This looks like it's probably just saving a couple of nops, though I may have misunderstood how this interfacts with alternatives. Cheers ---Dave > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > index accfe9a016f9..05fba76ec918 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > @@ -345,9 +345,7 @@ int kvm_vcpu_run_vhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > struct kvm_cpu_context *guest_ctxt; > u64 exit_code; > > - vcpu = kern_hyp_va(vcpu); > - > - host_ctxt = kern_hyp_va(vcpu->arch.host_cpu_context); > + host_ctxt = vcpu->arch.host_cpu_context; > host_ctxt->__hyp_running_vcpu = vcpu; > guest_ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt; > > -- > 2.14.2 > > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
