On 3/28/21 6:22 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 3/26/21 1:36 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> +int fp_exception_el(CPUARMState *env, int cur_el)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Oh, I'm pretty sure this should be identical with sve_exception_el, where the
> fpu may or may not be enabled for a given cpu state (e.g. lazy fpu switching
> in
> the kvm guest kernel).
>
> Are we really returning constant 0 for kvm before your patch set?
>
>
> r~
>
I tried to remember and follow the fp_exception_el in detail,
and _maybe_ the assumption here was the same as I had before, ie: KVM
arm_hcr_el2_eff() = 0?
So as we changed this assumption for arm_hcr_el2_eff(), and ended up taking the
whole implementation for KVM too,
we might need to do the same for fp_exception_el?
Thanks,
Claudio
