From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Arthur Chunqi Li <yzt356@gmail.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@web.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM : Change location of 3 functions in vmx.c
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:47:01 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130704094701.GC5113@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372921413-32239-1-git-send-email-yzt356@gmail.com>
Please add prefix VMX for vmx patches (or nVMX for nested) on a subject line
in the future. Like this:
KVM: nVMX: Change location of 3 functions in vmx.c.
No need to resend.
Otherwise both patches looks good to me.
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0800, Arthur Chunqi Li wrote:
> Move nested_vmx_succeed/nested_vmx_failInvalid/nested_vmx_failValid
> ahead of handle_vmon to eliminate double declaration in the same
> file
>
> Signed-off-by: Arthur Chunqi Li <yzt356@gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 260a919..1764b13 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -5551,8 +5551,47 @@ static void nested_free_all_saved_vmcss(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> free_loaded_vmcs(&vmx->vmcs01);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * The following 3 functions, nested_vmx_succeed()/failValid()/failInvalid(),
> + * set the success or error code of an emulated VMX instruction, as specified
> + * by Vol 2B, VMX Instruction Reference, "Conventions".
> + */
> +static void nested_vmx_succeed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> + & ~(X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF |
> + X86_EFLAGS_ZF | X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF));
> +}
> +
> +static void nested_vmx_failInvalid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, (vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> + & ~(X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF |
> + X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF))
> + | X86_EFLAGS_CF);
> +}
> +
> static void nested_vmx_failValid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> - u32 vm_instruction_error);
> + u32 vm_instruction_error)
> +{
> + if (to_vmx(vcpu)->nested.current_vmptr == -1ull) {
> + /*
> + * failValid writes the error number to the current VMCS, which
> + * can't be done there isn't a current VMCS.
> + */
> + nested_vmx_failInvalid(vcpu);
> + return;
> + }
> + vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, (vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> + & ~(X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF |
> + X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF))
> + | X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
> + get_vmcs12(vcpu)->vm_instruction_error = vm_instruction_error;
> + /*
> + * We don't need to force a shadow sync because
> + * VM_INSTRUCTION_ERROR is not shadowed
> + */
> +}
>
> /*
> * Emulate the VMXON instruction.
> @@ -5752,48 +5791,6 @@ static int get_vmx_mem_address(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * The following 3 functions, nested_vmx_succeed()/failValid()/failInvalid(),
> - * set the success or error code of an emulated VMX instruction, as specified
> - * by Vol 2B, VMX Instruction Reference, "Conventions".
> - */
> -static void nested_vmx_succeed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> -{
> - vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> - & ~(X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF |
> - X86_EFLAGS_ZF | X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF));
> -}
> -
> -static void nested_vmx_failInvalid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> -{
> - vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, (vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> - & ~(X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF |
> - X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF))
> - | X86_EFLAGS_CF);
> -}
> -
> -static void nested_vmx_failValid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> - u32 vm_instruction_error)
> -{
> - if (to_vmx(vcpu)->nested.current_vmptr == -1ull) {
> - /*
> - * failValid writes the error number to the current VMCS, which
> - * can't be done there isn't a current VMCS.
> - */
> - nested_vmx_failInvalid(vcpu);
> - return;
> - }
> - vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, (vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> - & ~(X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF |
> - X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF))
> - | X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
> - get_vmcs12(vcpu)->vm_instruction_error = vm_instruction_error;
> - /*
> - * We don't need to force a shadow sync because
> - * VM_INSTRUCTION_ERROR is not shadowed
> - */
> -}
> -
> /* Emulate the VMCLEAR instruction */
> static int handle_vmclear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> --
> 1.7.9.5
--
Gleb.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-04 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-04 7:03 [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM : Change location of 3 functions in vmx.c Arthur Chunqi Li
2013-07-04 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM : Set success rflags when emulate VMXON/VMXOFF in nested virt Arthur Chunqi Li
2013-07-04 9:47 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
2013-07-04 11:11 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM : Change location of 3 functions in vmx.c Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130704094701.GC5113@redhat.com \
--to=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=yzt356@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.