[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170930232234.ue665ojgjkegjpag@lostoracle.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 16:22:34 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, 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 Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:36:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/09/2017 19:12, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Does this make any other checks redundant and removable?
>
> It would make sense to place it in cpu_has_kvm_support instead
cpu_has_kvm_support() or cpu_has_vmx()?
>, and the same in svm.c's has_svm.
I don't follow (but I also don't know what any of these three letter
acryonyms acronyms stand for), does svm depend on vmx or vice-versa?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists