[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a826fd88-0199-8e7b-ebfc-290e936b5efc@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:09:04 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
Mohammed Gamal <mmorsy@...hat.com>,
Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] KVM: nVMX: optimize prepare_vmcs02{,_full} for
Enlightened VMCS case
On 21/06/2018 14:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> +static __always_inline bool evmcs_needs_write(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx,
> + u16 clean_field)
> +{
> + if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12)
> + return true;
Why is this needed? If it weren't for it, you could pass hv_evmcs
directly to evmcs_needs_write, which would simplify the code a bit in
the caller.
Paolo
> + return !(vmx->nested.hv_evmcs->hv_clean_fields & clean_field);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists