Re: [PATCH v4 04/17] KVM: arm64: Add a heap allocator for the pKVM hyp
Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 03:22:55PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 at 15:36, 'Vincent Donnefort' via kernel-team > <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > +static int hyp_allocator_destroy_chunk(struct hyp_allocator *allocator, > > + struct chunk_hdr *prev, > > + struct chunk_hdr *chunk) > > +{ > > + struct chunk_hdr *next; > > + > > + next = prev ? chunk_get_next(chunk) : NULL; > > + if (!hyp_allocator_can_destroy_chunk(allocator, prev, next, chunk)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + /* Last chunk in the allocator */ > > + if (!prev) { > > + allocator->first_unmapped = chunk_unmapped(chunk); > > + allocator->head = allocator->tail = NULL; > > + return 0; > > + } > > hyp_allocator_destroy_chunk() has only two callers, both in > hyp_allocator_free(), and both pass a non-NULL prev. So this !prev > branch cannot be reached, and nor can the matching "if (!prev) return > true;" in hyp_allocator_can_destroy_chunk() or the false arm of "next > = prev ? chunk_get_next(chunk) : NULL". > > The empty-allocator reset it looks like it is handling already happens > in hyp_allocator_reclaim_chunk(), in the addr == allocator->start > case. Could these be dropped? Ha yes, correct, that's leftover of the Android version. I can then remove that allocator argument in hyp_allocator_can_destroy_chunk(). > > With that: > > Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba <[email protected]> > > Cheers, > /fuad > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. >