[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y0vyraqd.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:52:58 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com, Santosh.Shukla@....com,
Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, David.Kaplan@....com,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
huibo.wang@....com, naveen.rao@....com, francescolavra.fl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/18] x86/apic: Add update_vector callback for
Secure AVIC
On Thu, Apr 17 2025 at 17:42, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On 4/17/2025 4:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +static void savic_update_vector(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int vector, bool set)
>>> +{
>>> + update_vector(cpu, SAVIC_ALLOWED_IRR, vector, set);
>>
>> This indirection is required because otherwise the code is too simple to
>> follow?
>>
> update_vector() is used by send_ipi_dest() in Patch 7. From your comment
> on v3 https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87y0whv57k.ffs@tglx/ , what I understood
> was that you wanted update_vector() to be defined in the patch where that code
> is added (i.e. this patch) and not at a later patch. Is that not correct
> understanding?
Fair enough. I missed the later usage sites. Again, a short note in the
change log which explains the rationale would avoid this.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists