On 2025-02-20 23:54, Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Thanks for the clarification. I had some misunderstandings about the relation between SVADU and SVADE. > How about > > /* > * The henvcfg.ADUE is read-only zero if menvcfg.ADUE is zero. > * Svade can't be disabled unless we support Svadu. > */ Yeah, that's better. Thanks, Chao > > 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
