[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37a6d13d-58ae-65e1-75f9-681a40d819a1@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 16:18:21 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: nVMX: Introduce nested_evmcs_is_used()
On 24/05/21 16:09, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> You mean we'll be using:
>
> "hv_evmcs_ptr == 0" meaning "no evmcs" (like now)
> "hv_evmcs_ptr == -1" meaing "evmcs not yet mapped" (and
> nested_evmcs_is_used() will check for both '0' and '-1')
> "hv_evmcs_ptr == anything else" - eVMCS mapped.
I was thinking of:
hv_evmcs_ptr == -1 meaning no evmcs
hv_evmcs == NULL meaning "evmcs not yet mapped" (I think)
hv_evmcs != NULL meaning "evmcs mapped".
As usual with my suggestions, I'm not sure if this makes sense :) but if
it does, the code should be nicer.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists