[PATCH] KVM: arm64: Cleanup the __get_fault_info() to take out the code that validates HPFAR
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Wed Sep 28 03:40:03 PDT 2022
Mingwei,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:48:52 -0400,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang at google.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Honestly, I'd refrain from such changes *unless* they enable something
> > else. The current code is well understood by people hacking on it, and
> > although I don't mind revamping it, it has to be for a good reason.
> >
> > I'd be much more receptive to such a change if it was a prefix to
> > something that actually made a significant change.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > M.
> >
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I am not sure about the style of the KVM ARM
> side. But in general I think mixing the generic code for ARM and
> specific CPU errata handling is misleading. For instance, in this
> case:
>
> + if ((esr & ESR_ELx_FSC_TYPE) == FSC_PERM)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_834220))
> + return false;
>
> As shown it would be much cleaner to separate the two cases as the
> former case is suggested in ARMv8 Spec D13.2.55. The latter case would
> definitely come from a different source.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. I don't object to the change
per se. I simply question its value *in isolation*. One of the many
things that makes the kernel hard to maintain is churn. Refactoring
just for the sake of it *is* churn. In this case, cosmetic churn.
But if you make this is part of something touching this area and
improving things from a functional perspective, then I'll happily
merge it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list