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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 916BDC32751 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2257821922 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:39:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2257821922 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953C94A572; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eo+pRm574qzh; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D834A525; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FFC4A524 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqqMPM+hz4c1 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D374A417 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024B528; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.133] (e112269-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.133]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63FC23F706; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 06:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV_TIME device to user space To: Marc Zyngier References: <20190802145017.42543-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20190802145017.42543-7-steven.price@arm.com> <20190803135113.6cdf500c@why> <20190803183335.149e0113@why> From: Steven Price Message-ID: <5aa54066-b9f6-22d1-fa2b-ce5cbf244ab5@arm.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:39:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190803183335.149e0113@why> Content-Language: en-GB Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On 03/08/2019 18:34, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:51:13 +0100 > Marc Zyngier wrote: > > [forgot that one] > >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:50:14 +0100 >> Steven Price wrote: > > [...] > >>> +static int __init kvm_pvtime_init(void) >>> +{ >>> + kvm_register_device_ops(&pvtime_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PV_TIME); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +late_initcall(kvm_pvtime_init); > > Why is it an initcall? So far, the only initcall we've used is the one > that initializes KVM itself. Can't we just the device_ops just like we > do for the vgic? So would you prefer a direct call from init_subsystems() in virt/kvm/arm/arm.c? The benefit of initcall is just that it keeps the code self-contained. In init_subsystems() I'd either need a #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 or a dummy function for arm. Steve _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm