From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 01 Aug 2018 06:11:59 -0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15] helo=mx1.suse.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fkkMI-0008IW-Ea for speck@linutronix.de; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 08:11:46 +0200 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1138DAE29 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 06:11:35 +0000 (UTC) From: Nicolai Stange Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] kvm: handle host mode irqs 5 References: <35707b97165397076dfcfcd686ce310806469c94.1532889633.git.nstange@suse.de> <20180730125912.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 08:11:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180730125912.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (speck for Peter Zijlstra's message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:59:12 +0200") Message-ID: <87r2jizkds.fsf_-_@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: speck for Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 01:22:16PM +0200, speck for Nicolai Stange wrote: >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/hardirq.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/hardirq.h >> @@ -7,6 +7,9 @@ >> >> typedef struct { >> u16 __softirq_pending; >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_INTEL) >> + bool kvm_cpu_l1tf_flush_l1d; >> +#endif > > NAK on using _Bool in a composite type. > Do I get it right that you'd prefer a bitfield? If so, I chose a bool here because updating a bitfield would involve a rmw operation and we might want to make NMIs set that flag opportunistically in a later patch. This series ignores NMIs for simplicity, because those issued after local_irq_disable() and before VMENTER would still get missed. Or did I miss your point completely? Thanks, Nicolai -- SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)