Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] RISC-V: KVM: Convert extension_disabled[] to ext_status[]

[Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>]

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:55 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> Change the boolean extension_disabled[] array to an array of enums,
> ext_status[]. For now, the enum only has two states, which correspond
> to the previous boolean states, so this patch has no intended
> functional change. The next patch will add another state, expanding
> the purpose of ext_status[].
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h | 7 ++++++-
>  arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c             | 9 ++++++---
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> index 4278125a38a5..cda99fc3d897 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> @@ -14,9 +14,14 @@
>  #define KVM_SBI_VERSION_MAJOR 1
>  #define KVM_SBI_VERSION_MINOR 0
>
> +enum KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_STATUS {

This upper-case name of enum looks odd.

> +       KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE,
> +       KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE,
> +};
> +
>  struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_context {
>         int return_handled;
> -       bool extension_disabled[KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_MAX];
> +       enum KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_STATUS ext_status[KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_MAX];
>  };
>
>  struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return {
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> index 6aa15f1b97d9..28e55ba023dc 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> @@ -155,7 +155,8 @@ static int riscv_vcpu_set_sbi_ext_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>         if (!sext)
>                 return -ENOENT;
>
> -       scontext->extension_disabled[sext->ext_idx] = !reg_val;
> +       scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] = reg_val ?
> +               KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE : KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE;
>
>         return 0;
>  }
> @@ -180,7 +181,8 @@ static int riscv_vcpu_get_sbi_ext_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>         if (!sext)
>                 return -ENOENT;
>
> -       *reg_val = !scontext->extension_disabled[sext->ext_idx];
> +       *reg_val = scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] ==
> +                               KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE;
>
>         return 0;
>  }
> @@ -316,7 +318,8 @@ const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *kvm_vcpu_sbi_find_ext(
>                 if (sext->ext_ptr->extid_start <= extid &&
>                     sext->ext_ptr->extid_end >= extid) {
>                         if (sext->ext_idx < KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_MAX &&
> -                           scontext->extension_disabled[sext->ext_idx])
> +                           scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] ==
> +                                               KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE)
>                                 return NULL;
>                         return sbi_ext[i].ext_ptr;
>                 }
> --
> 2.40.1
>

Otherwise, this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>

Regards,
Anup

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv