[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74fdb7e9d29af948d6ddaa7755b3c8bf7577f9c7.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 14:27:41 +0200
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: SVM: use vmcb01 in avic_init_vmcb
On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 16:48 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/1/22 18:25, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > I don't like this change. It's not bad code, but it'll be confusing because it
> > > implies that it's legal for svm->vmcb to be something other than svm->vmcb01.ptr
> > > when this is called.
> > Honestly I don't see how you had reached this conclusion.
> >
> > I just think that code that always works on vmcb01
> > should use it, even if it happens that vmcb == vmcb01.
> >
> > If you insist I can drop this patch or add WARN_ON instead,
> > I just think that this way is cleaner.
> >
>
> I do like the patch, but you should do the same in init_vmcb() and
> svm_hv_init_vmcb() as well.
I will do this.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> Paolo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists