Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/19] xen/arm: Introduce a virtual abort injection helper

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Wei,
> 
> On 30/03/17 10:13, Wei Chen wrote:
> > When guest triggers async aborts, in most platform, such aborts
> > will be routed to hypervisor. But we don't want the hypervisor
> > to handle such aborts, so we have to route such aborts back to
> > the guest.
> > 
> > This helper is using the HCR_EL2.VSE (HCR.VA for aarch32) bit to
> > route such aborts back to the guest. If the guest PC had been
> > advanced by SVC/HVC/SMC instructions before we caught the SError
> > in hypervisor, we have to adjust the guest PC to exact address
> > while the SError generated.
> > 
> > About HSR_EC_SVC32/64, even thought we don't trap SVC32/64 today,
> > we would like them to be handled here. This would be useful when
> > VM introspection will gain support of SVC32/64 trapping.
> > 
> > This helper will be used by the later patches in this series, we
> > use #if 0 to disable it in this patch temporarily to remove the
> > warning message of unused function from compiler.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > 1. After updating HCR_EL2.VSE bit of vCPU HCR_EL2, write the value
> >    to HCR_EL2 immediately. In this case we don't need to move the
> >    restoration of HCR_EL2 to leave_hypervisor_tail, and it worked
> >    regardless of whether we get preempted.
> 
> This should have been explained in the commit message and ...
> 
> > 2. Add Stefano's Acked-by.
> 
> I would not keep Acked-by/Reviewed-by with a change like above. Or at least, I
> would ask whether they are fine with this change.

That's true. Regardless, for this patch:

Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel