On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 06:20:30PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote: > The part of re-running test_udf_exception() with HFGITR_EL2 set, IIUC, it > that part of fine-grained traps. It seems correct, although I am not seeing > any tests of the EC syndrome being 0x1A to make sure it's in use.
Now that I look again this isn't actually effective anyway, we would need to run the guest code at emulated EL1 which for something that's basically just a double check. I'll just delete the extra runs. > There are also a lot of expect_exlock being used as an int, even if it's a > bool. I understand the idea of summing it as we expect it to be 1 on true > or 0 on false, but is it really ok? > Maybe we could change it to int, so we just set it when we enter > test_sysreg() or test_udf_exception() like: > - expect_exlock = enable_exlock; > + expect_exlock = enable_exlock ? 1 : 0; The conversions between int and and boolean values are part of the C spec and widely used within the kernel, we don't need to open code it. A zero in a boolean context is false, any other integer is true. Similarly false in an integer context is 0, and true is 1. > If I got the workings right, and both above suggestions (0x1A and > bool->int) are either fixed or considered not an issue, then: Thanks.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
