From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/23] KVM: arm64: Add arch vm ioctl hook
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:04:22 +0000
Message-ID: <20181115180421.GS3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1538141967-15375-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com>
 <1538141967-15375-21-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com>
 <20181102083227.GU12057@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE894A32B
 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:04:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id scEDu5v8tBL4 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>;
 Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70])
 by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FE14A2F1
 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181102083227.GU12057@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/options/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm>
List-Post: <mailto:kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
List-Help: <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
Cc: Okamoto Takayuki <tokamoto@jp.fujitsu.com>, Christoffer Dall <cdall@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:32:27AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > To enable arm64-specific vm ioctls to be added cleanly, this patch
> > adds a kvm_arm_arch_vm_ioctl() hook so that these don't pollute the
> > common code.
> 
> Hmmm, I don't really see the strenght of that argument, and have the
> same concern as before.  I'd like to avoid the additional indirection
> and instead just follow the existing pattern with a dummy implementation
> on the 32-bit side that returns an error.

So for this and the similar comment on patch 18, this was premature (or
at least, overzealous) factoring on my part.

I'm happy to merge this back together for arm and arm64 as you prefer.

Do we have a nice way of writing the arch check, e.g.

	case KVM_ARM_SVE_CONFIG:
		if (!IS_ENABLED(ARM64))
			return -EINVAL;
		else
			return kvm_vcpu_sve_config(NULL, userp);

should work, but looks a bit strange.  Maybe I'm just being fussy.

Is there a better way that I'm missing?

Cheers
---Dave