[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b73ef73a707faab870fa64f96af9e0c4de213043.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 01:41:10 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/18] KVM: x86: Drop superfluous kvm_hv_set_sint() =>
kvm_hv_synic_set_irq() wrapper
On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 17:48 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025, Kai Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:35 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Drop the superfluous kvm_hv_set_sint() and instead wire up ->set() directly
> > > to its final destination, kvm_hv_synic_set_irq(). Keep hv_synic_set_irq()
> > > instead of kvm_hv_set_sint() to provide some amount of consistency in the
> > > ->set() helpers, e.g. to match kvm_pic_set_irq() and kvm_ioapic_set_irq().
> > >
> > > kvm_set_msi() is arguably the oddball, e.g. kvm_set_msi_irq() should be
> > > something like kvm_msi_to_lapic_irq() so that kvm_set_msi() can instead be
> > > kvm_set_msi_irq(), but that's a future problem to solve.
> >
> > Agreed on kvm_msi_to_lapic_irq(), but isn't kvm_msi_set_irq() a matter match
> > to kvm_{pic/ioapic/hv_synic}_set_irq()? :-)
>
> Yes, the problem is that kvm_set_msi() is used by common code, i.e. could actually
> be kvm_arch_set_msi_irq(). I'm not entirely sure churning _that_ much code is
> worth the marginal improvement in readability.
Ah didn't know that, then don't bother I guess :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists