On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 07:49:05AM +0000, Chao Du wrote: > The comments for EXT_SVADE are opposite with the codes. Fix it to avoid > confusion. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Du <duchao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_onereg.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_onereg.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_onereg.c > index f6d27b59c641..6df41794e346 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_onereg.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_onereg.c > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static bool kvm_riscv_vcpu_isa_disable_allowed(unsigned long ext) > case KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVADE: > /* > * The henvcfg.ADUE is read-only zero if menvcfg.ADUE is zero. > - * Svade is not allowed to disable when the platform use Svade. > + * Svade is allowed to disable when the platform use Svade. > */ It was correct (but confusing) before this change. When arch_has_hw_pte_young() returns true, that means we can use SVADU (which is !SVADE). If we don't have SVADU, then we must be using SVADE, and therefore can't disable it. How about /* * The henvcfg.ADUE is read-only zero if menvcfg.ADUE is zero. * Svade can't be disabled unless we support Svadu. */ Thanks, drew > return arch_has_hw_pte_young(); > default: > -- > 2.34.1 > > > -- > kvm-riscv mailing list > kvm-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kvm-riscv
