On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:32:39PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > kvm_target_cpu() never returns a negative error code, so check_kvm_target() > would never have 'ret' filled with a negative error code. Hence the percpu > probe via check_kvm_target_cpu() does not make sense as its never going to > find an unsupported CPU, forcing kvm_arch_init() to exit early. Hence lets > just drop this percpu probe (and also check_kvm_target_cpu()) altogether. > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> > Cc: James Morse <[email protected]> > Cc: Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]> > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <[email protected]> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 14 -------------- > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > index 19560e457c11..16f93678c17e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > @@ -2010,11 +2010,6 @@ static int finalize_hyp_mode(void) > return 0; > } > > -static void check_kvm_target_cpu(void *ret) > -{ > - *(int *)ret = kvm_target_cpu(); > -} > - > struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_mpidr_to_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long mpidr) > { > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > @@ -2074,7 +2069,6 @@ void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_start(struct > irq_bypass_consumer *cons) > int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque) > { > int err; > - int ret, cpu; > bool in_hyp_mode; > > if (!is_hyp_mode_available()) { > @@ -2089,14 +2083,6 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque) > kvm_info("Guests without required CPU erratum workarounds can > deadlock system!\n" \ > "Only trusted guests should be used on this > system.\n"); > > - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { > - smp_call_function_single(cpu, check_kvm_target_cpu, &ret, 1); > - if (ret < 0) { > - kvm_err("Error, CPU %d not supported!\n", cpu); > - return -ENODEV; > - } > - }
Looks like kvm_target_cpu() *could* return an error at one time of day (at least on 32-bit), but agreed that this checking is no longer needed: Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]> Perhaps it's worth making the return type of kvm_target_cpu() a u32 to make it a bit more explicit that you shouldn't be returning an error code there? Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
