[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f0078376-dbd6-dc0a-6a7f-a05ebaadba11@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:57:14 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: VMX: introduce vmx_need_pf_intercept
On 20/06/20 00:45, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * TODO: if both L0 and L1 need the same MASK and MATCH,
>> + * go ahead and use it?
>> + */
> I'm not sure there's much "TODO", since L0's MASK and MATCH are both
> 0. So, if L1's MASK and MATCH are also both 0, we would go ahead and
> use 0's, which it seems we already do here:
True, the comment should be moved to patch 8.
Paolo
>> + vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, 0);
>> + vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, 0);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists