On 2020-06-11 16:43, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:59:05AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>index 9398b66f8a87..688213ef34f0 100644
>--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static int
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:59:05AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >index 9398b66f8a87..688213ef34f0 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static int mmu_topup_memory_cache(struct
> >kvm_mmu
Hi Sean,
On 2020-06-05 22:38, Sean Christopherson wrote:
Add a "gfp_zero" member to arm64's 'struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache' to
make
the struct and its usage compatible with the common 'struct
kvm_mmu_memory_cache' in linux/kvm_host.h. This will minimize code
churn when arm64 moves to the common
Add a "gfp_zero" member to arm64's 'struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache' to make
the struct and its usage compatible with the common 'struct
kvm_mmu_memory_cache' in linux/kvm_host.h. This will minimize code
churn when arm64 moves to the common implementation in a future patch, at
the cost of temporarily