Hi Marc, > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > index 0397606c0951..7cbff0ee59a5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h > > @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ static inline void __hyp_sve_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > * If FP/SIMD is not implemented, handle the trap and inject an undefined > > * instruction exception to the guest. Similarly for trapped SVE accesses. > > */ > > -static bool kvm_hyp_handle_fpsimd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code) > > +static inline bool kvm_hyp_handle_fpsimd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code) > > No, please don't do that. We already have function pointers for each > of these, so by doing that you are forcing the compiler to emit the > code *twice*. > > Instead, call into the relevant EC handler by using the base array > that already does the non-protected handling. > ... > > -static const exit_handler_fn *kvm_get_exit_handler_array(void); > > +const exit_handler_fn *kvm_get_exit_handler_array(struct kvm *kvm); > > Why? What breaks if when this is static? There really shouldn't be > anything else referencing this array. For the two points above, the reason I did that is because later patches call these functions from the newly added arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/sys_regs.c. That said, I think that the code that calls them more naturally belongs in arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c instead. I'll fix that, rebase on 5.15-rc2, and respin. Thanks, /fuad > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
