Hi Gavin, On 1/13/22 8:13 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: > Hi Shannon, > > On 1/13/22 3:02 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >> On 1/11/22 5:43 PM, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> On 2021/8/15 8:13, Gavin Shan wrote: >>>> +static unsigned long kvm_sdei_hypercall_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; >>>> + struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei; >>>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei; >>>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs *regs; >>>> + unsigned long index = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu); >>>> + unsigned long ret = SDEI_SUCCESS; >>>> + >>>> + /* Sanity check */ >>>> + if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) { >>>> + ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED; >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>> Maybe we could move these common sanity check codes to >>> kvm_sdei_hypercall to save some lines. >>> >> >> Not all hypercalls need this check. For example, >> COMPLETE/COMPLETE_RESUME/CONTEXT don't >> have SDEI event number as the argument. If we really want move this >> check into function >> kvm_sdei_hypercall(), we would have code like below. Too much >> duplicated snippets will >> be seen. I don't think it's better than what we have if I fully >> understand your comments. >> > > oops... sorry. Please ignore my previous reply. I thought you talk about > the check on the SDEI event number wrongly. Yes, you're correct that the > check should be moved to kvm_sdei_hypercall().
even better than my previous proposal then Eric > > Thanks, > Gavin > > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm