Hi Oliver,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:41 AM Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A subsequent change to KVM will introduce a vCPU request that could
> result in an exit to userspace. Change check_vcpu_requests() to return a
> value and document the function. Unconditionally return 1 for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index 7c297ddc8177..8eed0556ccaa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -648,7 +648,16 @@ void kvm_vcpu_wfi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
> -static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +/**
> + * check_vcpu_requests - check and handle pending vCPU requests
> + * @vcpu: the VCPU pointer
> + *
> + * Return: 1 if we should enter the guest
> + * 0 if we should exit to userspace
> + * <= 0 if we should exit to userspace, where the return value indicates
> + * an error
Nit: Shouldn't "<= 0" be "< 0" ?
Thanks,
Reiji
> + */
> +static int check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> if (kvm_request_pending(vcpu)) {
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_SLEEP, vcpu))
> @@ -678,6 +687,8 @@ static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(vcpu,
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0));
> }
> +
> + return 1;
> }
>
> static bool vcpu_mode_is_bad_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -793,7 +804,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (!ret)
> ret = 1;
>
> - check_vcpu_requests(vcpu);
> + if (ret > 0)
> + ret = check_vcpu_requests(vcpu);
>
> /*
> * Preparing the interrupts to be injected also
> --
> 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog
>
