From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756279AbdKGPib (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:38:31 -0500
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:51256 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752526AbdKGPia (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:38:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Prevent a VM using GICv4
 from being saved
To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Andre Przywara <Andre.Przywara@arm.com>,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@codeaurora.org>
References: <20171027142855.21584-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20171027142855.21584-24-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <1f75a11a-41c3-71b8-6abf-4aa2962e348e@redhat.com>
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Organization: ARM Ltd
Message-ID: <9c1e1c92-e0fa-737f-63ab-a335b93af6da@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 15:38:26 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1f75a11a-41c3-71b8-6abf-4aa2962e348e@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/11/17 15:24, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Hi Marc,
> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> The GICv4 architecture doesn't make it easy for save/restore to
>> work, as it doesn't give any guarantee that the pending state
>> is written into the pending table.
> 
> I don't understand where does the limitation exactly come from. Can't we
> use the GICR_VPENDBASER table data?
You can't. None of the tables that are written by either the ITS or the
redistributors are architected. All you know is that there is one bit
per vLPI, but that's it (you don't even know which one is which).

But that's not a big deal. I don't think you can realistically migrate a
VM that has a directly assigned device anyway. Or can we?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...