Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/19] KVM: SVM: Add helper to perform final AVIC "kick" of single vCPU | From | Maxim Levitsky <> | Date | Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:12:56 +0300 |
| |
On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 15:08 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 00:34 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > @@ -455,13 +461,8 @@ static void avic_kick_target_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *source, > > > */ > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) { > > > if (kvm_apic_match_dest(vcpu, source, icrl & APIC_SHORT_MASK, > > > - dest, icrl & APIC_DEST_MASK)) { > > > - vcpu->arch.apic->irr_pending = true; > > > - svm_complete_interrupt_delivery(vcpu, > > > - icrl & APIC_MODE_MASK, > > > - icrl & APIC_INT_LEVELTRIG, > > > - icrl & APIC_VECTOR_MASK); > > > - } > > > + dest, icrl & APIC_DEST_MASK)) > > > + avic_kick_vcpu(vcpu, icrl); > > > } > > > } > > > > > > > I don't know what I think about this, sometimes *minor* code duplication > > might actually be a good thing, as it is easier to read the code, but I don't > > have much against this as well. > > > > I am not sure if before or after this code is more readable. > > I don't have a strong opinion either. I think I prefer having the helper, but > have no objection to leaving things as is. Originally I was thinking there was > going to be a third call site, but that didn't happen. >
Yep - when something is duplicated 3 times, it is really rare to not want to have a helper, Anyway I don't have a strong opinion about this either.
I mostly was unsure about the fact that helper receives icrl and not icrh, kind of wierd, but anyway let it be.
Best regards, Maxim Levitsky
| |