On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:45:55 +0000,
Quentin Perret [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 Mar 2021 at 10:13:10 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index c4afe3d3397f..9108ccc80653 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -593,7 +593,9 @@ int kvm_test_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
-#define kvm_call_hyp_nvhe(f, ...) \
+static inline void __kvm_reset_sve_vq(void) {}
Why is this one needed? With an explicit call to kvm_call_hyp_nvhe() you
shouldn't need to provide a VHE implementation I think.
Did I mention that I positively hate kvm_call_hyp_nvhe()? ;-)
But yes, you are right, this can be further simplified.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel