From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519DEC0650F for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D1F2087F for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="hk/KqKIG" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729911AbfG3MJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 08:09:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:34629 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727561AbfG3MJE (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 08:09:04 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id 31so65530370wrm.1 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 05:09:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NEXRKVgiAewSzMHKuc4kYp85srZxayAyjwnb+cltz/A=; b=hk/KqKIGVmzsttbZR/gwF2OK0U4nrpMkMwgRfr4Suo1MJW2IsOPukKgv1lmqoSVUg0 NBSR/3ku96WkmFUeRHx/6fqdNY7BtJP9EegEJVfs9eQkmvAITRarqhgmAJhPrrrTFwtK /NYeHp4JADVMdK6Z5mZH+maD5ERJmoTMxpKWubgggtX482hx5c1a8qUXN4ztkebaAXg5 5CnI4ELBh+DDI08aHsI6B3hNBiuGKudfjO10f7xXoGTtPSHG3Hvq87Qao7/eUZESPJ9k UcWs5FBuqtax0X+W+DgUz2Xdw9l11bk1qBXgPXxW+q0MIdDYe4uoZ9W2FPiCToTeK7v1 yeIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NEXRKVgiAewSzMHKuc4kYp85srZxayAyjwnb+cltz/A=; b=XdAYrQSybgRe6av2APyAEkYOnCArVUdwXIaXoCJxyA8e7vB3Mg2alMD54ScPPC7Tr7 yzqQTKPE2sF6aSyI581fuYDalhLkD5jqJbsHZ886O2QEDBFc7pb0sRotXV+4esetVpnZ eXrruUfBXVsCPhTZAxFbGNKFM62HeUF1kdL+4uUUTJP+IhjBRkVJ5HX4fhi8JQZkD+f/ SY8VO6gsEam0Kdj23mVp+yrjxcjNQ46KtlqgEdNjjVlFAJ6roroXoGzvy4HojpJkCtE/ Ae/jjTJXUd1Nq9sGFJyiRHFE5XURH0oFY9b0gDjmHqSEVnhYigMufy5HEmz3qCgi08xD rPkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXyShIH3hHQU/BZbXsvKueC9NI8tnilBtaeyg8PgPsWaWJhmJRF MjNiXSWNBu51TY7ROX43fwgdCADRYOZPsaf3d7E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9j4zSHu4dp1+U/CdhnB7i3Hnbv00SVhZJbG6jzJT/h0YFIWOh4Y833SEXLrNLULQLDFdnZOtStWSu9W/tgKA= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6b11:: with SMTP id v17mr50422046wrw.323.1564488543296; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 05:09:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190729115544.17895-1-anup.patel@wdc.com> <20190729115544.17895-7-anup.patel@wdc.com> <3caa5b31-f5ed-98cd-2bdf-88d8cb837919@redhat.com> <536673cd-3b84-4e56-6042-de73a536653f@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <536673cd-3b84-4e56-6042-de73a536653f@redhat.com> From: Anup Patel Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:38:51 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/16] RISC-V: KVM: Implement KVM_GET_ONE_REG/KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctls To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Anup Patel , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Radim K , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Atish Patra , Alistair Francis , Damien Le Moal , Christoph Hellwig , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 30/07/19 10:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 29/07/19 13:56, Anup Patel wrote: > >> The PC register represents program counter whereas the MODE > >> register represent VCPU privilege mode (i.e. S/U-mode). > >> > > Is there any reason to include this pseudo-register instead of allowing > > SSTATUS access directly in this patch (and perhaps also SEPC)? > > Nevermind, I was confused - the current MODE is indeed not accessible as > a "real" CSR in RISC-V. Yes, you got it right. > > Still, I would prefer all the VS CSRs to be accessible via the get/set > reg ioctls. We had implemented VS CSRs access to user-space but then we removed it to keep this series simple and easy to review. We thought of adding it later when we deal with Guest/VM migration. Do you want it to be added as part of this series ? Regards, Anup