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:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:10:01 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/18] KVM: arm64: selftests: Add guest support to get
 the vcpuid
Message-ID: <20210910081001.4gljsvmcovvoylwt@gator>
References: <20210909013818.1191270-1-rananta@google.com>
 <20210909013818.1191270-10-rananta@google.com>
 <20210909075643.fhngqu6tqrpe33gl@gator>
 <CAJHc60wRkUyKEdY0ok0uC7r=P0FME+Lb7oapz+AKbjaNDhFHyA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60wRkUyKEdY0ok0uC7r=P0FME+Lb7oapz+AKbjaNDhFHyA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:10:56AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:56 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:38:09AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
...
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; i++) {
> > > +             vcpuid = vcpuid_map[i].vcpuid;
> > > +             GUEST_ASSERT_1(vcpuid != VM_VCPUID_MAP_INVAL, mpidr);
> >
> > We don't want this assert if it's possible to have sparse maps, which
> > it probably isn't ever going to be, but...
> >
> If you look at the way the array is arranged, the element with
> VM_VCPUID_MAP_INVAL acts as a sentinel for us and all the proper
> elements would lie before this. So, I don't think we'd have a sparse
> array here.

If we switch to my suggestion of adding map entries at vcpu-add time and
removing them at vcpu-rm time, then the array may become sparse depending
on the order of removals.

Thanks,
drew