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

[Steven Price]

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.

Steve