On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
> first.
>
> To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two
> without making any other changes.
>
> There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
You say this...
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> Cc: David Brazdil <dbraz...@google.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index f7e7144af174c..5d18c54507e6a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -428,35 +428,35 @@ static __always_inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int
> num)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Test for a capability, possibly with a runtime check.
> + * Test for a capability without a runtime check.
> *
> - * Before capabilities are finalized, this behaves as cpus_have_cap().
> + * Before capabilities are finalized, this will BUG().
> * After capabilities are finalized, this is patched to avoid a runtime
> check.
> *
> * @num must be a compile-time constant.
> */
> -static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_final_cap(int num)
> {
> if (system_capabilities_finalized())
> return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> else
> - return cpus_have_cap(num);
> + BUG();
... but isn't the failure case of calling cpus_have_final_cap() early now
different? What does BUG() do at EL2 w/ nVHE?
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
