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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B970C433E0 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:36:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0341923433 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727047AbhAMOgM (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:36:12 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38358 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726770AbhAMOgL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:36:11 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE789C0617A3 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id e25so1815133wme.0 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=k8M4ay0pyWeTUsp8VTnmXaOTFerFbqdBD2/I+a5rVXU=; b=QRj1w8Zq8rESBoWrOk4jhvDSx+r0QWDtuf8GtQvgUpnFqBkcPHdTvb7c85hHF2l7cc qDKLJjq9Ii0ShbvDAU8iPTjVj20pMzOpAmpTWPBPhfpw7RQO8ZxSx4EUM8mZsSiXOwQL mdSHwkiWfb6QKpJX/SX1f5FrqdKK38gVDw2QhYa4LBWQ5jOkpmSnlu6QgdD7PLAOsV1i pjdicHccdwcNo3H+EHeD0jh7OVRjagkZ/8yX0F72Uzi/JeXwMnfHry8HzfWpKUBOJuAj gvO7/YEvY/bLsnuixLd6a0UD+ErWYadkCVa8OGxI4YHgEEgNnjV4lTOzzUhdH+UO71MZ 81gA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=k8M4ay0pyWeTUsp8VTnmXaOTFerFbqdBD2/I+a5rVXU=; b=AavHoCHCedjmHzKXcBQo9KKOsFRCNCEy5E/0HYQe0rMTIAmnGC7Wy3qwB7u0Cth1Mj NGLZjJiYKJglpgrbW8j1OGb9pRP9lHH5CoN5PEiEEw08dREbgfua42LXHoWzbryWCf9m Vn9/569nkLF1bTQj8DLv3Wmhc5skLbSYyHyxkBAPgCftx6IXWBEyrQlQxn/1H5zvxpRY 5uykykFQQRDCgmBGiXusyFWnBRtS3qmlBhI3SWPaxlUhpEjZMARdPymvnbqVhGTjubIT ipBPmXeirwk53PSnE4uHpNGvAtc/aLMF24PptLsUh6N5LRmLCgdzyhJHtbPFME3HEx9q WNWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BfdRrBipf3aouSwOLdr/3hrQxvs1L5PUChn1n1CfrV2I0Xssk 96BK60LKlI5gsNO6gQhSEfB8lg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeEFIkF9DIJ5QpLZTm88kYBUJZLogYBqCXhodFTAckts1/BoAtWv9HKHGKxjjjbk2k938twA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7f83:: with SMTP id a125mr2516711wmd.86.1610548503499; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 06:35:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (230.69.233.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.233.69.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm3410751wma.26.2021.01.13.06.35.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 06:35:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:35:00 +0000 From: Quentin Perret To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , James Morse , Julien Thierry , Suzuki K Poulose , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, android-kvm@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Fuad Tabba , Mark Rutland , David Brazdil Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 13/26] KVM: arm64: Enable access to sanitized CPU features at EL2 Message-ID: References: <20210108121524.656872-1-qperret@google.com> <20210108121524.656872-14-qperret@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 13 Jan 2021 at 14:23:03 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote: > Good point, that would be nice indeed. Can I use that from outside an > __init function? Just gave it a go, and the answer to this appears to be yes, surprisingly -- I was expecting a compile-time warning similar to what we get when non-__init code calls into __init, but that doesn't seem to trigger here. Anyways, I'll add the annotation in v3. Thanks, Quentin