[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9aec9f47-3390-de0d-e125-c7cef14df894@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:13:21 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] nSVM: introduce smv->nested.save to cache save
area fields
On 29/09/21 00:23, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On a related topic, this would be a good opportunity to resolve the naming
> discrepancies between VMX and SVM. VMX generally refers to vmcs12 as KVM's copy
> of L1's VMCS, whereas SVM generally refers to vmcb12 as the "direct" mapping of
> L1's VMCB. I'd prefer to go with VMX's terminology, i.e. rework nSVM to refer to
> the copy as vmcb12, but I'm more than a bit biased since I've spent so much time
> in nVMX,
I agree, and I think Emanuele's patches are a step in the right
direction. Once we ensure that all state in svm->nested is cached
vmcb12 content, we can get rid of vmcb12 pointers in the functions.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists