From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC4B7D1A62D for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:23:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=dnokwNTfGZIXmBX/ga1vI5Gz8+qjRTxL2GrMqLWnT+M=; b=pTa2/iAKIxdV5nh2TMP0t9yzNq XarUGJNZoBxWXMWkXc4NI8dQJ/RbbbR0Ni8Im2B45WoxdINYCFawOuexs1igvuVg1vbM+fuLVS+nq MEWCvBbpyUR+8GWIW6RBUNCkar0lI7+BBpDas9eybMMcsRzApratbFNulN4FLZB2py+j3LY3UDe40 3u1UhKu7wy//sB3lR86vxgOn/UCtiPJ/A5ZBO3fbXitGpleP+7oBlHYYoVftLOF7d7MpmxH9zk9+i 4O2E92Z66gOPGLUGS5KUTYqQWsp8GkAXXSGN7jUiafZuQTQsybTlU/7wWTm5aMCQWkVDU8jFexoq4 jEWmJ24w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1veDP7-00000002PFV-2BG1; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 14:23:53 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1veDP6-00000002PFP-1rMQ for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 14:23:52 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7774A60145; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:23:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB0A4C4CEF1; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:23:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767968631; bh=v2mF8aLKfRFIoZvCzsD/JTiSuILPUbZkMqh8PP3HP94=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mjXgkvzwh9ohy9KFUBLSwyL4x7NxOnQEV4oodib4hze9U+aPNObV+YkvS0nApJpuF Mm8n5d2VU6GIBsLvgketsGZgEA1975ZxY3Mn5lQKMkEizKXYbyYNXbHoIOJCbL3mAM vW/kkmkNFU2tmLeQ2SoNDBRrP0PMc0P01jCzR8zy5Mf6xIl8gh3Sk364ikJ+M9d5oq Kq2K48UjIauB6LARB7dibk4h5Q5KchAbOPheTZEWcgWG7Qc87oNokXDIqtiOftfNdv aJOjd6C+25kaMY3R1AvhlZgnX8WO4MYyihLGfLgDX7nOpOwnwlWyQngjz1EmIRKkYH NnPh9ZtT8W9cA== Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:23:45 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Quentin Perret Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , Catalin Marinas , Fuad Tabba , Vincent Donnefort , Mostafa Saleh Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/30] KVM: arm64: Remove pointless is_protected_kvm_enabled() checks from hyp Message-ID: References: <20260105154939.11041-1-will@kernel.org> <20260105154939.11041-7-will@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 02:40:47PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Monday 05 Jan 2026 at 15:49:14 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > > When pKVM is not enabled, the host shouldn't issue pKVM-specific > > hypercalls and so there's no point checking for this in the EL2 > > hypercall handling code. > > > > Remove the redundant is_protected_kvm_enabled() checks. > > That made me wonder if we should further divide the HVC space to have a > 'pKVM only' range in addition to the privileged/unprivileged split, so > we could WARN in the core HVC handler in the pretty unlikely event that > we take a pKVM-only call in {n,h}VHE. Good idea. I can certainly look at that as a follow-up to this series but I'd prefer not to grow it beyond its current scope at the moment as it's already bigger than I would really like. > But yes there is no point in littering the code with is_protected_kvm_enabled() > checks all over, so: > > Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret Thanks, Will