Re: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU
From: Isaku Yamahata <hidden>
Date: 2022-11-04 07:18:28
Also in:
kvm, kvm-riscv, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-mips, linux-riscv, linux-s390, lkml
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:34:10PM +0000, Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:quoted
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000, Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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.quoted
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.
Makes sense. Let's settle it with this_cpu. -- Isaku Yamahata [off-list ref]