From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bandan Das Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: use vmcs_set/clear_bits for CPU-based execution controls Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:22:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1487169866-14989-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <372283237.23068299.1487320918001.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: In-Reply-To: <372283237.23068299.1487320918001.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:41:58 -0500 (EST)") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Paolo Bonzini writes: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bandan Das" >> To: "Paolo Bonzini" >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 1:04:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: use vmcs_set/clear_bits for CPU-based execution controls >> >> Paolo Bonzini writes: >> >> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >> > --- >> >> I took a quick look and found these two potential >> consumers of these set/clear wrappers. >> >> vmcs_set_secondary_exec_control() >> vmx_set_virtual_x2apic_mode() >> >> Since this has been reviewed already, >> we can just have them later in a follow up >> (unless you left them out intentionally). > > Both of these can both set and clear bits, so they could be the > consumer of a new function > > void vmcs_write_bits(u16 field, u32 value, u32 mask) > > but I don't see much benefit in introducing it; the cognitive > load is higher than vmcs_{set,clear}_bits. Yes, agreed. Thanks! > Paolo