Re: [PATCH v6 43/64] KVM: arm64: nv: arch_timer: Support hyp timer emulation

Marc Zyngier
2022-03-07T16:53:33Z

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 16:28:44 +0000,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:48:19PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2022-03-07 14:52, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that KVM's nested virtualization doesn't
> > > support
> > > AArch32 in the guest, why is the subject about hyp mode aarch32 timers?
> >
> > Where did you see *ANY* mention of AArch32?
>
> I saw an implicit mention of aarch32 when the commit message used
> the term "hyp", which is the name of an aarch32 execution mode.
>
> >
> > Or is that a very roundabout way to object to the 'hyp' name?
>
> Bingo.
>
> > If that's the case, just apply a mental 's/hyp/el2/' substitution.
>
> I'm a bit confused about that. Is that something that anyone reading
> the patch should apply mentally when reading the patch, or is it
> something that you plan to change in the commit subject?

Big picture:

maz@hot-poop:~/arm-platforms$ git grep -i hyp arch/arm64/|wc -l
1701
maz@hot-poop:~/arm-platforms$ git grep -i el2 arch/arm64/|wc -l
1008

Are we going to also repaint all these 'hyp' references?

I really appreciate all the hard work you are putting in carefully
reviewing the code. I *really* do. But bickering on this really
doesn't help, and I know you understand exactly what this subject line
means (you've been reviewing KVM code for long enough, and won't fool
anyone).

The point you are trying to make really is moot. Everybody understands
that HYP means EL2. I'd even argue that it is clearer than EL2,
because it indicates that we're running at EL2 with the role of a
hypervisor, which isn't that clear with running with VHE.

And if they don't understand that, it unfortunately means they can't
really review this code.

M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.