From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 08:25:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 17/44] KVM: arm64: Do arm/arch initialiation without
 bouncing through kvm_init()
In-Reply-To: <20221102231911.3107438-18-seanjc@google.com>
References: <20221102231911.3107438-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20221102231911.3107438-18-seanjc@google.com>
Message-ID: <dd59d579-4a4e-6db2-eac4-6c5c3ab71fd3@linaro.org>
List-Id: <kvm-riscv.lists.infradead.org>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Sean,

On 3/11/22 00:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Move arm/arch specific initialization directly in arm's module_init(),
> now called kvm_arm_init(), instead of bouncing through kvm_init() to
> reach kvm_arch_init().  Invoking kvm_arch_init() is the very first action
> performed by kvm_init(), i.e. this is a glorified nop.
> 
> Making kvm_arch_init() a nop will allow dropping it entirely once all
> other architectures follow suit.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

>   /* NOP: Compiling as a module not supported */
>   void kvm_arch_exit(void)
>   {
> -	kvm_unregister_perf_callbacks();

Doesn't this belong to the previous patch?

> +
>   }