Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:58:32 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, android-kvm@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 23/26] KVM: arm64: Refactor __populate_fault_info()
Message-ID: <20210203155831.GG18974@willie-the-truck>
References: <20210108121524.656872-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20210108121524.656872-24-qperret@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210108121524.656872-24-qperret@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:15:21PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Refactor __populate_fault_info() to introduce __get_fault_info() which
> will be used once the host is wrapped in a stage 2.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h | 36 +++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
> index 84473574c2e7..e9005255d639 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
> @@ -157,19 +157,9 @@ static inline bool __translate_far_to_hpfar(u64 far, u64 *hpfar)
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -static inline bool __populate_fault_info(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static inline bool __get_fault_info(u64 esr, u64 *far, u64 *hpfar)

Could this take a pointer to a struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info instead?

Will