From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] KVM: nSVM: implement on demand allocation of the nested state
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:26:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201001002657.GD2988@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0518490df933d0b12b6dc4b0df2234091cd95ce7.camel@redhat.com>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 06:35:40PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 22:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Side topic, do we actually need 'initialized'? Wouldn't checking for a
> > valid nested.msrpm or nested.hsave suffice?
>
> It a matter of taste - I prefer to have a single variable controlling this,
> rather than two.
> a WARN_ON(svm->nested.initialized && !svm->nested.msrpm || !svm->nested.hsave))
> would probably be nice to have. IMHO I rather leave this like it is if you
> don't object.
I don't have a strong preference. I wouldn't bother with the second WARN_ON.
Unless you take action, e.g. bail early, a NULL pointer will likely provide a
stack trace soon enough :-).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-01 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-22 21:10 [PATCH v6 0/4] KVM: nSVM: ondemand nested state allocation Maxim Levitsky
2020-09-22 21:10 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] KVM: x86: xen_hvm_config: cleanup return values Maxim Levitsky
2020-09-22 21:10 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] KVM: x86: report negative values from wrmsr emulation to userspace Maxim Levitsky
2020-10-26 19:40 ` Qian Cai
2020-10-27 20:31 ` Qian Cai
2020-10-28 8:51 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-09-22 21:10 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] KVM: x86: allow kvm_x86_ops.set_efer to return an error value Maxim Levitsky
2020-09-29 5:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-22 21:10 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] KVM: nSVM: implement on demand allocation of the nested state Maxim Levitsky
2020-09-29 5:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-30 15:35 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-10-01 0:26 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-09-30 15:36 ` [PATCH v6 0/4] KVM: nSVM: ondemand nested state allocation Maxim Levitsky
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=20201001002657.GD2988@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.