[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/svm: Drop the suffix _guest from vmcb bit
On 12.03.2024 11:08, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > On 3/12/24 08:59, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 11.03.2024 13:40, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: >>> @@ -698,11 +698,11 @@ nsvm_vcpu_vmentry(struct vcpu *v, struct >>> cpu_user_regs *regs, >>> /* Convert explicitely to boolean. Deals with l1 guests >>> * that use flush-by-asid w/o checking the cpuid bits */ >>> nv->nv_flushp2m = !!ns_vmcb->tlb_control; >>> - if ( svm->ns_guest_asid != ns_vmcb->_guest_asid ) >>> + if ( svm->ns_asid != ns_vmcb->_asid ) >>> { >>> nv->nv_flushp2m = 1; >>> hvm_asid_flush_vcpu_asid(&vcpu_nestedhvm(v).nv_n2asid); >>> - svm->ns_guest_asid = ns_vmcb->_guest_asid; >>> + svm->ns_asid = ns_vmcb->_asid; >>> } >>> >>> /* nested paging for the guest */ >>> @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ nsvm_vmcb_prepare4vmexit(struct vcpu *v, struct >>> cpu_user_regs *regs) >>> /* Keep it. It's maintainted by the l1 guest. */ >>> >>> /* ASID */ >>> - /* ns_vmcb->_guest_asid = n2vmcb->_guest_asid; */ >>> + /* ns_vmcb->_asid = n2vmcb->_asid; */ >> >> Unlike in the earlier patch, where I could accept the request to switch >> to using accessor functions as scope-creep-ish, here I'm pretty firm >> with my request to stop their open-coding at the same time. Unless of >> course there's a technical reason the accessors cannot be used here. > > Yes, so as mentioned in the other patch's reply, I plan to tackle this > instance too in the followup patchset along with others. So, if you're > fine with it, I'll leave this one here for now. Unless you prefer otherwise. I thought I said pretty clearly that here I'm stronger with my request than on the other patch. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |