On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:45:55 +0000,
Quentin Perret <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 16 Mar 2021 at 10:13:10 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index c4afe3d3397f..9108ccc80653 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -593,7 +593,9 @@ int kvm_test_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long
> > hva);
> > void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> > void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >
> > -#define kvm_call_hyp_nvhe(f, ...)
> > \
> > +static inline void __kvm_reset_sve_vq(void) {}
>
> Why is this one needed? With an explicit call to kvm_call_hyp_nvhe() you
> shouldn't need to provide a VHE implementation I think.
Did I mention that I positively hate kvm_call_hyp_nvhe()? ;-)
But yes, you are right, this can be further simplified.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
