[PATCH v5 08/30] KVM: arm64: make kvm_at() take an OP_AT_*

[Will Deacon]

Hey Marc,

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 09:01:18AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:48:11 +0100,
> Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 04:10:51PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > > To allow using newer instructions that current assemblers don't know about,
> > > replace the `at` instruction with the underlying SYS instruction.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly at arm.com>
> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev>
> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h       | 3 ++-
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/fault.h | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Marc -- what would you like to do with this patch? I think the POE series
> > is really close now, so ideally I'd queue the lot on a branch in arm64
> > and you could pull the first ~10 patches into kvmarm if you need 'em.
> > 
> > Would what work for you, or did you have something else in mind (since
> > this one is also included in your series adding nv support for AT).
> 
> Is there any progress on this front? I am quite eager to queue the AT
> series, but the dependency on this patch is preventing me to do so.
> 
> I can see there are outstanding questions on the POE series, so I was
> wondering if we should consider reversing the dependency: I can create
> a stable branch with this single patch, which you can pull as a prefix
> of the POE series.

That sounds like a good idea. The uaccess discussion seems to have
stalled and I don't really want to merge the series without concluding
that.

So please go ahead with this single patch and I'll pull it in if things
start moving again.

Will