[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2be6c0e6-416e-484f-9fa1-c4cb12486bbc@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 07:48:08 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
<erdemaktas@...gle.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Sagi Shahar
<sagis@...gle.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, <chen.bo@...el.com>,
<hang.yuan@...el.com>, <tina.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 085/130] KVM: TDX: Complete interrupts after tdexit
On 4/23/2024 6:15 AM, Binbin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/2024 2:23 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Isaku,
>>
>> (In shortlog "tdexit" can be "TD exit" to be consistent with
>> documentation.)
>>
>> On 2/26/2024 12:26 AM, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
>>> From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
>>>
>>> This corresponds to VMX __vmx_complete_interrupts(). Because TDX
>>> virtualize vAPIC, KVM only needs to care NMI injection.
>> This seems to be the first appearance of NMI and the changelog
>> is very brief. How about expending it with:
>>
>> "This corresponds to VMX __vmx_complete_interrupts(). Because TDX
>> virtualize vAPIC, KVM only needs to care about NMI injection.
> ^
> virtualizes
>
> Also, does it need to mention that non-NMI interrupts are handled by posted-interrupt mechanism?
>
> For example:
>
> "This corresponds to VMX __vmx_complete_interrupts(). Because TDX
> virtualizes vAPIC, and non-NMI interrupts are delivered using posted-interrupt
> mechanism, KVM only needs to care about NMI injection.
> ...
> "
>
Thank you Binbin. Looks good to me.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists