[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <498ed7dc-41b2-a075-cdce-e63a80842d39@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:36:03 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
Cc: kay@...y.org, avi@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: check match table
On 26/09/2017 19:12, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index 6970249c09fc..e1a00b130935 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -12074,7 +12074,12 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
>>
>> static int __init vmx_init(void)
>> {
>> - int r = kvm_init(&vmx_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
>> + int r;
>> +
>> + if (!x86_match_cpu(vmx_cpu_id))
>> + return -ENODEV;
> Does this make any other checks redundant and removable?
It would make sense to place it in cpu_has_kvm_support instead, and the
same in svm.c's has_svm.
But there's a lot of pointless indirection to clean up there...
Paolo
>> +
>> + r = kvm_init(&vmx_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
>> __alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx), THIS_MODULE);
>> if (r)
>> return r;
>> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists