On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:04:34PM +0000, Lucas Mateus Martins Araujo e Castro wrote:
> 
> 
> >> spapr_hcall.c:
> >>     function h_enter call ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb, ppc_hash64_map_hptes and ppc_hash64_unmap_hptes
> >>     function remove_hpte call ppc_hash64_map_hptes, ppc_hash64_unmap_hptes and ppc_hash64_tlb_flush_hpte
> >>     function h_protect call ppc_hash64_map_hptes, ppc_hash64_unmap_hptes and ppc_hash64_tlb_flush_hpte
> >>     function h_read call ppc_hash64_map_hptes and ppc_hash64_unmap_hptes
> >>     function rehash_hpte call ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb
> >>     function rehash_hpt call ppc_hash64_map_hptes and ppc_hash64_unmap_hptes
> 
> >h_enter, remove_hpte, h_protect, h_read and rehash_hpte should never
> >be called for a KVM guest (KVM will intercept the relevant hcalls
> >before they reach qemu).  I think it would make sense to split of a
> >TCG only portion of spapr_hcall.c into a new file.  You'll then
> >probably need !TCG stubs for those hypercalls, which should trip a
> >fatal error (if KVM hasn't handled the calls, there's nothing we can
> >do that will salvage the situation).
> 
> These functions are static, so I thought about turning them into non-static functions and creating the prototype in
> internal.h and changing hw/ppc/meson.build to add the correct .c file but hw/ppc/ doesn't have an internal.h
> 
> What is the best way to handle this static functions?

They're static because their only direct use is passing to
spapr_register_hypercall() in hypercall_register_types().  You can put
your own register types function in the new KVM-only file, with those
calls, so everything will stay static.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson