On 24/06/19 16:16, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> gpa_t vmptr;
>>> + u64 evmptr;
>> I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and
>> sufficiently short.
>>
> Sure.
>
Let's make it evmcs_gpa instead. "*_ptr" or "p_*" should be for host
pointers.
Paolo
Liran Alon writes:
>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 17:16, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>>
>> That said I'm ok with dropping nested_release_evmcs() for consistency
>> but we can't just drop 'if (vmptr == vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr)’.
>
> Right. I meant that we can just change code to:
>
> /* Add relevant c
> On 25 Jun 2019, at 14:15, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Liran Alon writes:
>
>>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 11:51, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>
>>> Liran Alon writes:
>>>
> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>
> +bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu
Liran Alon writes:
>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 11:51, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> Liran Alon writes:
>>
On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
+bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *evmptr)
>>>
>>> I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I
> On 25 Jun 2019, at 11:51, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Liran Alon writes:
>
>>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> +bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *evmptr)
>>
>> I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and
Liran Alon writes:
>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>>
>> +bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *evmptr)
>
> I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and
> sufficiently short.
> In addition, I think you should return eithe
> On 24 Jun 2019, at 17:16, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Liran Alon writes:
>
>>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>
>>> When Enlightened VMCS is in use, it is valid to do VMCLEAR and,
>>> according to TLFS, this should "transition an enlightened VMCS from the
>>> active
Liran Alon writes:
>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> When Enlightened VMCS is in use, it is valid to do VMCLEAR and,
>> according to TLFS, this should "transition an enlightened VMCS from the
>> active to the non-active state". It is, however, wrong to assume that
>> it
> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> When Enlightened VMCS is in use, it is valid to do VMCLEAR and,
> according to TLFS, this should "transition an enlightened VMCS from the
> active to the non-active state". It is, however, wrong to assume that
> it is only valid to do VMC
9 matches
Mail list logo
