From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: nVMX: Check all exceptions for intercept during
 delivery to L2
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:52:14 +0300
Message-ID: <20130925115214.GJ1445@redhat.com>
References: <1380102696-25267-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <1380102696-25267-4-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <5242BD1C.1020903@redhat.com>
 <20130925110012.GH1445@redhat.com>
 <5242C833.80609@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9056 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755000Ab3IYLwQ (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:52:16 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8PBqGKN005330
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:52:16 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5242C833.80609@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:25:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 25/09/2013 13:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> > > @@ -1921,8 +1920,7 @@ static void vmx_queue_exception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned nr,
> >>> > >  	struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> >>> > >  	u32 intr_info = nr | INTR_INFO_VALID_MASK;
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > -	if (!reinject && nr == PF_VECTOR && is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> >>> > > -	    !vmx->nested.nested_run_pending && nested_pf_handled(vcpu))
> >>> > > +	if (!reinject && is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_ex_handled(vcpu, nr))
> >> > 
> >> > The code is now pretty similar to what svm.c does.  Do we want to move
> >> > the is_guest_mode(vcpu) check into nested_ex_handled, too?  (Or vice
> >> > versa, take it out in svm.c).  Perhaps you could also name the function
> >> > nested_vmx_check_exception.
> >> > 
> > I want to try to move the logic into common code eventually. I do not
> > mind renaming for now, but it will have to wait for the next week :)
> 
> I can rename while applying the patch.  Making more logic common to vmx
> and svm can wait.
> 
Yes, of course, logic unification is not for the immediate feature.

--
			Gleb.