Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2022 22:34:10 +0000 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU |
| |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000, > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > 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.
> 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.
| |