On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:40:00PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/10/17 21:06, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:20:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> We currently have no less than three implementations for the
> >> "flush to PoC" code. Let standardize on a single one. T
On 16/10/17 21:06, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:20:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> We currently have no less than three implementations for the
>> "flush to PoC" code. Let standardize on a single one. This
>> requires a bit of unpleasant moving around, and relies on
>> __
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:20:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> We currently have no less than three implementations for the
> "flush to PoC" code. Let standardize on a single one. This
> requires a bit of unpleasant moving around, and relies on
> __kvm_flush_dcache_pte and co being #defines so tha
We currently have no less than three implementations for the
"flush to PoC" code. Let standardize on a single one. This
requires a bit of unpleasant moving around, and relies on
__kvm_flush_dcache_pte and co being #defines so that they can
call into coherent_dcache_guest_page...
Signed-off-by: Mar