[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d34c1d3c-324e-4645-9d48-09c94212aa5e@default>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
To: <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: <kernellwp@...il.com>, <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
<andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Add Force Emulation Prefix for "emulate the
next instruction"
----- pbonzini@...hat.com wrote:
> On 27/03/2018 09:52, Liran Alon wrote:
> > In addition, I think this module parameter should be in kvm module
> > (not kvm_intel) and you should add similar logic to kvm_amd module
> (SVM)
>
> If you can move handle_ud to x86.c, then it makes sense to have the
> module parameter in the kvm module. I haven't checked.
I don't see a reason why you couldn't do that.
>
> Otherwise you would have to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL the variable; in the
This is what I did for enable_vmware_backdoor module parameter.
I think this is what should be done in this case as-well.
> end
> it's just a debugging tool, so it'd be simpler to just add it
> separately
> to kvm_intel and kvm_amd.
I agree it's just a debugging tool. But no reason for it to be used differently
when running tests on Intel CPU vs. AMD CPU.
I think the effort to fix this is low.
>
> Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists