Re: [PATCH v9] arm/kvm: Enable support for KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 09/04/2024 09.47, Shaoqin Huang wrote:
Hi Thmoas,

On 4/9/24 13:33, Thomas Huth wrote:
+        assert_has_feature(qts, "host", "kvm-pmu-filter");

So you assert here that the feature is available ...

          assert_has_feature(qts, "host", "kvm-steal-time");
          assert_has_feature(qts, "host", "sve");
          resp = do_query_no_props(qts, "host");
+        kvm_supports_pmu_filter = resp_get_feature_str(resp, "kvm-pmu-filter");           kvm_supports_steal_time = resp_get_feature(resp, "kvm-steal-time");
          kvm_supports_sve = resp_get_feature(resp, "sve");
          vls = resp_get_sve_vls(resp);
+        if (kvm_supports_pmu_filter) { >
... why do you then need to check for its availability here again?
I either don't understand this part of the code, or you could drop the kvm_supports_pmu_filter variable and simply always execute the code below.

Thanks for your reviewing. I did so because all other feature like "kvm-steal-time" check its availability again. I don't know the original reason why they did that. I just followed it.

Do you think we should delete all the checking?

resp_get_feature() seems to return a boolean value, so though these feature could be there, they still could be disabled, I assume? Thus we likely need to keep the check for those.


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux