[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3Zkkc1edwYtpk+N@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:42:57 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI bit definition
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:32:35PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > @@ -5029,6 +5031,10 @@ static __init int svm_hardware_setup(void)
> > svm_x86_ops.vcpu_get_apicv_inhibit_reasons = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > + vnmi = vnmi && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_VNMI);
>
> s/boot_cpu_has/cpu_feature_enabled/
Why? This is rarely run code, won't cpu_feature_enabled() unnecessarily require
patching?
And while we're on the topic... https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y22IzA9DN%2FxYWgWN@google.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists