Re: [PATCH v2 41/43] KVM: VMX: Pass desired vector instead of bool for triggering posted IRQ
From: Maxim Levitsky <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-31 22:26:01
Also in:
kvm, kvm-riscv, kvmarm, linux-mips, linux-riscv, lkml
On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Refactor the posted interrupt helper to take the desired notification vector instead of a bool so that the callers are self-documenting. No functional change intended. Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> --- arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c index 78c8bc7f1b3b..f505fee3cf5c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c@@ -3928,11 +3928,9 @@ static void vmx_msr_filter_changed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) } static inline bool kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, - bool nested) + int pi_vec) { #ifdef CONFIG_SMP - int pi_vec = nested ? POSTED_INTR_NESTED_VECTOR : POSTED_INTR_VECTOR; - if (vcpu->mode == IN_GUEST_MODE) { /* * The vector of interrupt to be delivered to vcpu had@@ -3986,7 +3984,7 @@ static int vmx_deliver_nested_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, */ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu); /* the PIR and ON have been set by L1. */ - if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, true)) + if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, POSTED_INTR_NESTED_VECTOR)) kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu); return 0; }@@ -4024,7 +4022,7 @@ static int vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector) * guaranteed to see PID.ON=1 and sync the PIR to IRR if triggering a * posted interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE. */ - if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, false)) + if (!kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt(vcpu, POSTED_INTR_VECTOR)) kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu); return 0;
I both like and don't like this patch. It is indeed a bit more more self documented, but then it allows caller to pass anything other than POSTED_INTR_NESTED_VECTOR/POSTED_INTR_VECTOR which would fail. Maybe addd an assert? I won't do bikesheddding about this though, so Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <redacted> Best regards, Maxim Levitsky _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel