Hello! > > It's simply more convenient to use a pointer for exchange with > > userspace, see vgic_v3_cpu_regs_access() and callers. I wouldn't like > > to refactor the code again. What's your opinion on this? > > I still don't think this is a good idea. You can still store the value > as an integer in vgic_v3_cpu_regs_access(), and check the write property > to do the writeback on read. Which is the same thing I asked for in this > patch.
Started doing this and found one more (big) reason against. All sysreg handlers have 'const struct sys_reg_params' declaration, and callers, and their callers... This 'const' is all around the code, and it would take a separate huge patch to un-const'ify all this. Does it worth that? Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
