[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221104071819.GD1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:18:19 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
Fabiano Rosas <farosas@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:34:10PM +0000,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000,
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index f223c845ed6e..c99222b71fcc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_nested_ops {
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct kvm_x86_init_ops {
> > > - int (*check_processor_compatibility)(void);
> > > + int (*check_processor_compatibility)(int cpu);
> >
> > Is this cpu argument used only for error message to include cpu number
> > with avoiding repeating raw_smp_processor_id() in pr_err()?
>
> Yep.
>
> > The actual check is done on the current executing cpu.
> >
> > If cpu != raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu is wrong. Although the function is called
> > in non-preemptive context, it's a bit confusing. So voting to remove it and
> > to use.
>
> What if I rename the param is this_cpu? I 100% agree the argument is confusing
> as-is, but forcing all the helpers to manually grab the cpu is quite annoying.
Makes sense. Let's settle it with this_cpu.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists