On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:07:59 +0000,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h b/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
> > index 62ef4883e644..e76e513b90c5 100644
> > --- a/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
> > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_arch_timer.h
> > @@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ struct arch_timer_offset {
> > * structure. If NULL, assume a zero offset.
> > */
> > u64 *vm_offset;
> > + /*
> > + * If set, pointer to one of the offsets in the vcpu's sysreg
> > + * array. If NULL, assume a zero offset.
> > + */
> > + u64 *vcpu_offset;
> > };
>
> > struct arch_timer_vm_offsets {
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
> This pointer isn't initialized until next commit and this commit is
> small so I think it should be merged with the next one.
Like the rest of the vcpu structure, this is of course initialised to
zero. Yes, the patch is small. It does *one* thing, which is to plug a
new offset.
Should it be buried into a much bigger patch? I don't think so.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
