Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] KVM: arm64: Support stolen time reporting via shared structure

[Andrew Jones]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 04/10/2019 08:03, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 03:22:35PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:50:32PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> >>> +int kvm_update_stolen_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> >>> +	u64 steal;
> >>> +	u64 steal_le;
> >>> +	u64 offset;
> >>> +	int idx;
> >>> +	u64 base = vcpu->arch.steal.base;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (base == GPA_INVALID)
> >>> +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Let's do the local bookkeeping */
> >>> +	steal = vcpu->arch.steal.steal;
> >>> +	steal += current->sched_info.run_delay - vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal;
> >>> +	vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
> >>> +	vcpu->arch.steal.steal = steal;
> >>> +
> >>> +	steal_le = cpu_to_le64(steal);
> >>
> >> Agreeing on a byte order for this interface makes sense, but I don't see
> >> it documented anywhere. Is this an SMCCC thing? Because I skimmed some
> >> of those specs and other users too but didn't see anything obvious. Anyway
> >> even if everybody but me knows that all data returned from SMCCC calls
> >> should be LE, it might be nice to document that in the pvtime doc.
> 
> A very good point - I'll document this in the Linux document and feed
> that back for DEN0057A.
> 
> > 
> > I have another [potentially dumb] SMCCC byte order question. If we need
> > to worry about using LE for the members of this structure, then why don't
> > we need to worry about the actual return values of the SMCCC calls? Like
> > the IPA of the structure?
> 
> The SMCCC calls pass values in registers. It's only when reading/writing
> these values from/to memory that the endianness actually has any meaning.
>

Ah yes, of course.

Thanks,
drew