On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:45 AM Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:53:06PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > If guests don't have certain CPU erratum work-arounds implemented, then > > there is a possibility a guest can deadlock the system. IOW, only trusted > > guests should be used on systems with the erratum. > > > > This is the case for Cortex-A57 erratum 832075. > > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> > > Cc: James Morse <[email protected]> > > Cc: Julien Thierry <[email protected]> > > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <[email protected]> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > index 90cb90561446..e2f50fa4d825 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > @@ -1653,6 +1653,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque) > > return -ENODEV; > > } > > > > + if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_DEVICE_LOAD_ACQUIRE)) > > + kvm_info("Guests without required CPU erratum work-arounds > > can deadlock system!\n" \ > > work-arounds => workarounds > > (mainly for consistency, I have no clue if this is a real word or not!). > > I'd also probably do erratum => errata given that you're about to add a > second one.
Humm, the plural is on workarounds. If I use a more standard singular vs. plural form like "CPU feature workarounds" vs "CPU features workarounds", the former seems more correct to me. (working around features may be a bit nonsensical, but big.LITTLE ;) ) Rob _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
