Hi Alex,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 02:50:33PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
Are you happy with this?:
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+/**
+ * kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension
+ *
+ * We currently assume that the number of HW registers is uniform
+ * across all CPUs (see cpuinfo_sanity_check).
+ */
int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
{
int r;@@ -64,6 +71,12 @@ int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
case KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT:
r = cpu_has_32bit_el1();
break;
+ case KVM_CAP_GUEST_DEBUG_HW_BPS:
+ r = hw_breakpoint_slots(TYPE_INST);
+ break;
+ case KVM_CAP_GUEST_DEBUG_HW_WPS:
+ r = hw_breakpoint_slots(TYPE_DATA);
+ break;
Whilst I much prefer this code, it actually adds an unwanted dependency
on PERF_EVENTS that I didn't think about to start with. Sorry to keep
messing you about -- I guess your original patch is the best thing after
all.
Will