[PATCH v19 06/20] KVM: arm64: Refactor the vcpu_load to allow for VM specific callbacks

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 22/09/2026 20:57, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 22:28:31 +0100
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com> wrote:
> 
>> To keep the VCPU load/put handling cleaner with the different kinds of VM
>> types, we are about to introduce VM specific callbacks to do just the right
>> thing. In preparation for that, make some refactoring to add the change
>> easier.
>>
>> No functional changes intended. Based on a work by Marc Zyngier.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
> 
> Trivial stuff inline + maybe one blob that should be in previous patch?
> 

...

>> +
>> +static void vcpu_set_wfx_traps(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	if (kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twe(vcpu))
>> +		vcpu->arch.hcr_el2 &= ~HCR_TWE;
>> +	else
>> +		vcpu->arch.hcr_el2 |= HCR_TWE;
>> +
>> +	if (kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twi(vcpu))
>> +		vcpu->arch.hcr_el2 &= ~HCR_TWI;
>> +	else
>> +		vcpu->arch.hcr_el2 |= HCR_TWI;
> 
> You could use FIELD_MODIFY() for these but maybe not worth it.
> 

...

>> @@ -772,7 +782,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   		kvm_call_hyp_nvhe(__pkvm_vcpu_put);
>>   
>>   		/* __pkvm_vcpu_put implies a sync of the state */
>> -		if (!kvm_vm_is_protected(vcpu->kvm))
>> +		if (kvm_vm_is_unprotected_pkvm(vcpu->kvm))
>>   			vcpu_set_flag(vcpu, PKVM_HOST_STATE_DIRTY);
> 
> Why in this patch?

I have moved it to the patch where we introduce the VM flavors, thanks!

Suzuki

> 
>>   	}
>>   
>