>>> On 30.04.18 at 17:56, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 04/30/2018 11:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.04.18 at 17:30, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> On 04/30/2018 07:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> @@ -1168,6 +1169,9 @@ static void noreturn svm_do_resume(struc >>>> >>>> hvm_do_resume(v); >>>> >>>> + if ( v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb_sync_state == vmcb_needs_vmload ) >>>> + svm_sync_vmcb(v, vmcb_needs_vmsave); >>> >>> Is it not possible (or advisable) to move the test into svm_sync_vmcb() >>> (and drop the ASSERT there)? >> It is possible; I'm not sure myself if it's advisable, but I take you asking >> the >> question as you thinking it is, so I'll change it. > > That was really the main reason for me asking to move svm_vmload into > svm_sync_vmcb() --- to hide all logic related to the sync state machine > there.
Well, there's still the code in svm_vmexit_do_vmload(). Depending on your opinion on the post-commit-message question in patch 2, the one at the top of svm_vmexit_handler() might go away in that patch. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
