[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRYNH+=Ra=1KSJdT5Ej5kTfdV8J7Rf6JcS9NGbPOYPj8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:42:21 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: SVM: Move and split up svm.c
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:30 AM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here is a patch-set agains kvm/queue which moves svm.c into its own
> > subdirectory arch/x86/kvm/svm/ and splits moves parts of it into
> > separate source files:
>
> What are people's thoughts on using "arch/x86/kvm/{amd,intel}" instead of
> "arch/x86/kvm/{svm,vmx}"? Maybe this won't be an issue for AMD/SVM, but on
> the Intel/VMX side, there is stuff in the pipeline that makes using "vmx"
> for the sub-directory quite awkward. I wasn't planning on proposing the
> rename (from vmx->intel) until I could justify _why_, but perhaps it makes
> sense to bundle all the pain of a reorganizing code into a single kernel
> version?
Doesn't VIA have some CPUs that implement VMX?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists