On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:45PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
+int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+unsigned long psci_fn = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) ~((u32) 0);
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:33:15PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:45PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
+int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu
On 11/01/13 17:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:45PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
+int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+unsigned
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:45PM +, Marc
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
again, that's why I suggest returning a bool instead. You just said
it: it's a basic handled/not-handled state. Why do you want to return
-EINVAL if that's not propogated anywhere?
We have a well established principle throughout
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
again, that's why I suggest returning a bool instead. You just said
it: it's a basic handled/not-handled state. Why do you want to return
On 11/01/13 17:48, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:07:31PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
The _very_ good reason here, is that we have two success cases: return
to guest and return to user space. As I said, we can save this state
in another bit somewhere and change all the KVM/ARM code to do so, but
the KVM guys back
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:07:31PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
The _very_ good reason here, is that we have two success cases: return
to guest and return to user space. As I said, we can save this state
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:48, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 17:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marc Zyngier
10 matches
Mail list logo
