On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:10:56AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:56 AM Andrew Jones [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:38:09AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
...
quoted
quoted
+ for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; i++) {
+ vcpuid = vcpuid_map[i].vcpuid;
+ GUEST_ASSERT_1(vcpuid != VM_VCPUID_MAP_INVAL, mpidr);
We don't want this assert if it's possible to have sparse maps, which
it probably isn't ever going to be, but...
If you look at the way the array is arranged, the element with
VM_VCPUID_MAP_INVAL acts as a sentinel for us and all the proper
elements would lie before this. So, I don't think we'd have a sparse
array here.
If we switch to my suggestion of adding map entries at vcpu-add time and
removing them at vcpu-rm time, then the array may become sparse depending
on the order of removals.
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel