On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:21:45PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 04:47:08PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 03:29:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > > On 17/10/17 15:07, Dave Martin wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:58:16AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> > > >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:38:41PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>
> [...]
>
>> > > >>> @@ -897,8 +898,17 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
>> > > >>> {
>> > > >>> u32 id = sys_reg((u32)r->Op0, (u32)r->Op1,
>> > > >>> (u32)r->CRn, (u32)r->CRm, (u32)r->Op2);
>> > > >>> + u64 val = raz ? 0 : read_sanitised_ftr_reg(id);
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> - return raz ? 0 : read_sanitised_ftr_reg(id);
>> > > >>> + if (id == SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1) {
>> > > >>> + if (val & (0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_SVE_SHIFT))
>> > > >>> + pr_err_once("kvm [%i]: SVE unsupported for guests, suppressing\n",
>> > > >>> + task_pid_nr(current));
>> > > >>
>> > > >> nit: does this really qualify as an error print?
>> > > >
>> > > > I have no strong opinion on this: maz suggested I should add this --
>> > > > his concern was to make it difficult to ignore.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is transitional: the main purpose is to circumvent bug reports from
>> > > > people who find that SVE doesn't work in their guests, in the interim
>> > > > before proper KVM support lands upstream.
>> > > >
>> > > > Marc, do you still agree with this position?
>> > >
>> > > As long as this is transitional, I'm OK with this.
>> >
>> > No argument from me, since it was your request in the first place ;)
>> >
>> > Christoffer?
>> >
>> No (further) argument from me.
>
> OK, thanks. Can I take that as an Ack?
>
Yes:
Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
