lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 08/10] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
On 2020-09-07 10:28, Jianyong Wu wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 4:55 PM
>> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>

[...]

>> >> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATUR
>> >> ES_FUNC_ID,
>> >> > + &hvc_res);
>> >> > + if (!(hvc_res.a0 | BIT(ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_KVM_PTP)))
>> >> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> >> > +
>> >> > + return 0;
>> >>
>> >> What happens if the
>> >> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID function isn't
>> implemented
>> >> (on an old kernel or a non-KVM hypervisor)? The expected behaviour is
>> >> that a0 will contain SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, which is -1.
>> >> The result is that this function always returns "supported". Not an
>> >> acceptable behaviour.
>> >>
>> > Oh! it's really a stupid mistake, should be "&" not "|".
>>
>> But even then. (-1 & whatever) is always true.
>
> Yeah, what about checking if a0 is non-negative first? Like:
> if (hvc_res.a0 < 0 || !(hvc_res.a0 & BIT(ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_KVM_PTP)))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;

I don't get it. You already carry a patch from Will that gives
you a way to check for a service (kvm_arm_hyp_service_available()).

Why do you need to reinvent the wheel?

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-07 11:47    [W:0.070 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site