> On Sep 12, 2025, at 20:01, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 09:27:40 +0100,
> Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This isn't an acceptable commit message.
>
>> ---
>> Seen a build failure with old Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, while the latest release
>> has no build issue, a write to the bit fields is RAZ/WI, remove the
>> function.
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vpmu_counter_access.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vpmu_counter_access.c
>> index f16b3b27e32ed7ca57481f27d689d47783aa0345..56214a4430be90b3e1d840f2719b22dd44f0b49b 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vpmu_counter_access.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vpmu_counter_access.c
>> @@ -45,11 +45,6 @@ static uint64_t get_pmcr_n(uint64_t pmcr)
>> return FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr);
>> }
>>
>> -static void set_pmcr_n(uint64_t *pmcr, uint64_t pmcr_n)
>> -{
>> - u64p_replace_bits((__u64 *) pmcr, pmcr_n, ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N);
>> -}
>> -
>> static uint64_t get_counters_mask(uint64_t n)
>> {
>> uint64_t mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
>> @@ -490,7 +485,6 @@ static void test_create_vpmu_vm_with_pmcr_n(uint64_t pmcr_n, bool expect_fail)
>> * Setting a larger value of PMCR.N should not modify the field, and
>> * return a success.
>> */
>> - set_pmcr_n(&pmcr, pmcr_n);
>> vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), pmcr);
>> pmcr = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0));
>>
>>
>
> So what are you fixing here? A build failure? A semantic defect?
> Something else? What makes this a valid change?
>
> Frankly, I have no idea.
>
> But KVM definitely allows PMCR_EL0.N to be written from userspace, and
> that's not going to change.
>
Then I’ll drop this patch.
Thanks,
Itaru.
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
