[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a6hsj9wd.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:46:42 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: isaku.yamahata@...el.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: isaku.yamahata@...el.com, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 26/59] KVM: x86: Introduce vm_teardown() hook in
kvm_arch_vm_destroy()
On Wed, Nov 24 2021 at 16:20, isaku yamahata wrote:
> Add a second kvm_x86_ops hook in kvm_arch_vm_destroy() to support TDX's
> destruction path, which needs to first put the VM into a teardown state,
> then free per-vCPU resource, and finally free per-VM resources.
>
> Note, this knowingly creates a discrepancy in nomenclature for SVM as
> svm_vm_teardown() invokes avic_vm_destroy() and sev_vm_destroy().
> Moving the now-misnamed functions or renaming them is left to a future
> patch so as not to introduce a functional change for SVM.
That's just the wrong way around. Fixup SVM first and then add the TDX
muck on top. Stop this 'left to a future patch' nonsense. I know for
sure that those future patches never materialize.
The way it works is:
1) Refactor the code to make room for your new functionality in a
way that the existing code still works.
2) Add your new muck on top.
Anything else is not acceptable at all.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists