Re: [PATCH v21 05/23] KVM: arm64: Track the type of VM in kvm_arch

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 02/10/2026 16:29, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2026 15:37:00 +0100,
> Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On Fri, 02 Oct 2026 15:15:06 +0100, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Honestly, we introduce the flavor stuff to make it easy to match
> > > things on a particular VM type in a readable way. So why isn't this
> > > reading:
> > >
> > >          if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vm_flavor != VM_PROTECTED_PKVM)
> > >                  return;
> >
> > I know this is a sketch, but just in case: that's inverted. The sync
> > only applies to non-protected pKVM VMs (EL2 ignores it for protected
> > ones), so it would be != VM_PKVM.
>
> See what I meant about this stuff being completely intractable? I
> still have no idea what it means! ;-)

Just to be clear: unprotected_pkvm() != (vm_flavor != VM_PROTECED_PKVM).
Rather, unprotected_pkvm => (vm_flavor == VM_PKVM).

And the code wanted to bail out early for !unprotected_pkvm(). We can
stick in "is_protected_kvm_enabled()" for unprotected_pkvm predicate

But, I can drop the helper and use the vm_flavor check.

Cheers
Suzuki

> 	M.