[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y45ex/CyTY7jYa5D@google.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 21:12:39 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Paul Durrant <paul@....org>, 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, Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...el.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>,
Fabiano Rosas <farosas@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/50] KVM: x86: Do CPU compatibility checks in x86
code
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:09:15PM +0000,
> > index 66f16458aa97..3571bc968cf8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9277,10 +9277,36 @@ static inline void kvm_ops_update(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> > kvm_pmu_ops_update(ops->pmu_ops);
> > }
> >
> > +struct kvm_cpu_compat_check {
> > + struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops;
> > + int *ret;
>
> minor nitpick: just int ret. I don't see the necessity of the pointer.
> Anyway overall it looks good to me.
...
> > @@ -9360,6 +9386,14 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> > if (r != 0)
> > goto out_mmu_exit;
> >
> > + c.ret = &r;
> > + c.ops = ops;
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat, &c, 1);
> > + if (r < 0)
>
> Here it can be "c.ret < 0".
No, because the below goto leads to "return r", i.e. "c.ret" needs to be propagated
to "r". That's why the code does the admittedly funky "int *ret" thing.
FWIW, this gets cleanup in the end. "struct kvm_cpu_compat_check" goes away and
"&r" is passed directly to kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat.
> > + goto out_hardware_unsetup;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists