On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:18:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call > > cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap() > > first. > > > > To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two > > without making any other changes. > > > > There should be no functional change as a result of this patch. > > You say this... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]> > > Cc: David Brazdil <[email protected]> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> > > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 16 ++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > index f7e7144af174c..5d18c54507e6a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > @@ -428,35 +428,35 @@ static __always_inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int > > num) > > } > > > > /* > > - * Test for a capability, possibly with a runtime check. > > + * Test for a capability without a runtime check. > > * > > - * Before capabilities are finalized, this behaves as cpus_have_cap(). > > + * Before capabilities are finalized, this will BUG(). > > * After capabilities are finalized, this is patched to avoid a runtime > > check. > > * > > * @num must be a compile-time constant. > > */ > > -static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num) > > +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_final_cap(int num) > > { > > if (system_capabilities_finalized()) > > return __cpus_have_const_cap(num); > > else > > - return cpus_have_cap(num); > > + BUG(); > > ... but isn't the failure case of calling cpus_have_final_cap() early now > different? What does BUG() do at EL2 w/ nVHE?
Ah no, sorry, I see you're just moving things around and the diff makes it look confusing (that and I've been up since 5:30 for KVM Forum). So on closer inspection: Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]> Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
