From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 22:34:10 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU
In-Reply-To: <20221103210402.GB1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20221102231911.3107438-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20221102231911.3107438-37-seanjc@google.com>
 <20221103210402.GB1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <Y2RB4qT02EkhMjPL@google.com>
List-Id: <kvm-riscv.lists.infradead.org>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000,
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index f223c845ed6e..c99222b71fcc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_nested_ops {
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct kvm_x86_init_ops {
> > -	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(void);
> > +	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(int cpu);
> 
> Is this cpu argument used only for error message to include cpu number
> with avoiding repeating raw_smp_processor_id() in pr_err()?

Yep.

> The actual check is done on the current executing cpu.
> 
> If cpu != raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu is wrong. Although the function is called
> in non-preemptive context, it's a bit confusing. So voting to remove it and
> to use.

What if I rename the param is this_cpu?  I 100% agree the argument is confusing
as-is, but forcing all the helpers to manually grab the cpu is quite annoying.