Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore

From: [email-masked] (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:34:17 +0100

On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Benn?e wrote:
> 
> Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Benn?e wrote:
>>>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state
>>>> before entry into the hypervisor code.
>>>
>>> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the
>>> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2.
> 
> "before entry into EL2."
> 
>>>
>>>> In the case of guest state it
>>>> could be in either el0 or el1.
>>>
>>> true
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Benn?e <[email-masked]>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++----
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@
>>>>  	stp	x29, lr, [x3, #80]
>>>>  
>>>>  	mrs	x19, sp_el0
>>>> -	mrs	x20, elr_el2		// EL1 PC
>>>> -	mrs	x21, spsr_el2		// EL1 pstate
>>>> +	mrs	x20, elr_el2		// PC before hyp entry
>>>> +	mrs	x21, spsr_el2		// pstate before hyp entry
>>>>  
>>>>  	stp	x19, x20, [x3, #96]
>>>>  	str	x21, [x3, #112]
>>>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@
>>>>  	ldr	x21, [x3, #16]
>>>>  
>>>>  	msr	sp_el0, x19
>>>> -	msr	elr_el2, x20 				// EL1 PC
>>>> -	msr	spsr_el2, x21 				// EL1 pstate
>>>> +	msr	elr_el2, x20 		// PC to restore
>>>> +	msr	spsr_el2, x21 		// pstate to restore
>>>
>>> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here.
>>>
>>> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one
>>> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when
>>> reading this kind of stuff.
>>>
>>> Meh, I'm not sure.  Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>> Marc?
>>
>> While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the
>> code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some
>> value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of
>> code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model.
>>
>> As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that
>> clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e:
>>
>> 	mrs	x20, elr_el2		// Guest PC
>> 	mrs	x21, spsr_el2		// Guest pstate
>>
>> (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to
>> restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are
>> saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey
>> here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest
>> registers.
> 
> Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to
> save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my
> weasely words. 

Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these
days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with
Christoffer's comment addressed?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...