[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4068ff4962154900a6a3535454f4706e@baidu.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 01:00:07 +0000
From: "Wang,Guangju" <wangguangju@...du.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"wanpengli@...cent.com" <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chu,Kaiping" <chukaiping@...du.com>
Subject: 答复: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add EOI_INDUCED exit handlers for Hyper-V SynIC vectors
> Rather than add a third helper, what about renaming kvm_apic_set_eoi_accelerated() and having the non-accelerated helper call the "acclerated" version? That will document the delta between the non-accelerated patch and the accelerated path.
> The only hiccup is tracing, but that's easy to resolve (or we could just not trace if there's no valid vector to EOI), e.g.
Yeah, rename the function and integrate two paths looks clearer and easier to understand?
Thanks Sean for the suggestion, I will send a new patch with a new subject and changelog.
--
Wang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists