lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/vmware: Update platform detection code for VMCALL/VMMCALL hypercalls
From
Date
Thanks for reviewing, Borislav. Comments inline.

On 8/27/19 2:56 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:13:13AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>
>> +
>> +#define VMWARE_CMD(cmd, eax, ebx, ecx, edx) do { \
>> + switch (vmware_hypercall_mode) { \
>> + case CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_ECX_VMCALL: \
>> + VMWARE_VMCALL(cmd, eax, ebx, ecx, edx); \
>> + break; \
>> + case CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_ECX_VMMCALL: \
>> + VMWARE_VMMCALL(cmd, eax, ebx, ecx, edx); \
>> + break; \
>> + default: \
> Please integrate scripts/checkpatch.pl into your patch creation
> workflow. Some of the warnings/errors *actually* make sense:
>
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or fallthrough comment
> #110: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c:81:
> + case CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_ECX_VMMCALL: \
>
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or fallthrough comment
> #113: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c:84:
> + default:
>
> In this case, we're going to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough by default at
> some point.

We *do* have checkpatch.pl in the workflow. In this case I figured the
warnings actually didn't make sense. There are breaks present and
-Wimplicit-fallthrough doesn't complain...


(unsigned int) vmware_hypercall_mode);

> Is that supposed to be debug output? If so, pr_dbg().

This is intentionally intended to be part of the initial output.

>
>> +
>> return CPUID_VMWARE_INFO_LEAF;
>> + }
>> } else if (dmi_available && dmi_name_in_serial("VMware") &&
>> __vmware_platform())
> What sets vmware_hypercall_mode in this case? Or is the 0 magic to mean,
> use the default: VMWARE_PORT inl call?

Yes, Perhaps I should add a comment about that.

>
> Also, you could restructure that function something like this to save yourself
> an indentation level or two and make it more easily readable:
>
> static uint32_t __init vmware_platform(void)
> {
> unsigned int hyper_vendor_id[3];
> unsigned int eax;
>
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) {
> if (dmi_available && dmi_name_in_serial("VMware") && __vmware_platform())
> return 1;
> }
>
> cpuid(CPUID_VMWARE_INFO_LEAF, &eax, &hyper_vendor_id[0],
> &hyper_vendor_id[1], &hyper_vendor_id[2]);
>
> if (!memcmp(hyper_vendor_id, "VMwareVMware", 12)) {
> if (eax >= CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_LEAF)
> vmware_hypercall_mode = vmware_select_hypercall();
>
> pr_info("hypercall mode: 0x%02x\n", (unsigned int) vmware_hypercall_mode);
>
> return CPUID_VMWARE_INFO_LEAF;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
Sure, I'll add that as a separate patch.

For the other comments, I'll fix up and respin.

Thanks,

Thomas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-27 21:20    [W:0.081 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site