On 10.01.2024 20:11, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 02/11/2023 8:57 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 01.11.2023 20:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>> @@ -4097,10 +4097,6 @@ void vmx_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) >>> case EXIT_REASON_MCE_DURING_VMENTRY: >>> do_machine_check(regs); >>> break; >>> - >>> - case EXIT_REASON_INIT: >>> - printk(XENLOG_ERR "Error: INIT received - ignoring\n"); >>> - return; /* Renter the guest without further processing */ >>> } >> Wouldn't the printk() better remain where it was, and just the "return" be >> purged? > > Not really... that would hit the unknown vmexit path in the second.
Well, I didn't mean to suggest to purge the other hunk. Instead I meant ... > We actually have a variety of empty cases in the second. We could add > another. ... something along these lines - do nothing but "break;" there. Jan
