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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox