From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Naveen N Rao <naveen@kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Xin Li <xin@zytor.com>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: SVM: Update "APICv in x2APIC without x2AVIC" in avic.c, not svm.c
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:08:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aND11RilfAPJ7ud6@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aM1mVMXptK-sko3f@google.com>
>Question then. Does anyone have a preference/opinion between explicitly passing
>in ops to vendor specific helpers, vs. making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible?
>
>I don't love creating "hidden" dependencies, in quotes because in this case it's
>relatively easy to establish that the setup() helpers modify {svm,vt}_x86_ops,
>i.e. surprises should be rare.
>
>On the other hand, I do agree it's helpful to be able to see exactly where
>{svm,vt}_x86_ops are updated.
I think passing in ops to vendor-specific helpers looks a bit indirect as the
parameter should always be svm_x86_ops for AMD or vt_x86_ops for Intel.
I slightly prefer making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible.
>
>And most importantly, I want to be consistent between VMX and SVM, i.e. I want
>to pick one and stick with it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-22 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-19 0:21 [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: SVM: Enable AVIC for Zen4+ (if x2AVIC) Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] KVM: SVM: Move x2AVIC MSR interception helper to avic.c Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 9:35 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: SVM: Update "APICv in x2APIC without x2AVIC" in avic.c, not svm.c Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 9:42 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 14:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-22 7:08 ` Chao Gao [this message]
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] KVM: SVM: Always print "AVIC enabled" separately, even when force enabled Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 9:52 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] KVM: SVM: Don't advise the user to do force_avic=y (when x2AVIC is detected) Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 10:26 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] KVM: SVM: Move global "avic" variable to avic.c Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 10:31 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 14:44 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 18:27 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 0:21 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] KVM: SVM: Enable AVIC by default for Zen4+ if x2AVIC is support Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 10:37 ` Naveen N Rao
2025-09-19 21:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-19 10:42 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: SVM: Enable AVIC for Zen4+ (if x2AVIC) Naveen N Rao
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=aND11RilfAPJ7ud6@intel.com \
--to=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naveen@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--cc=xin@zytor.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.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