'struct kvm_hv_hcall' has all the required information already,
there's no need to pass 'ex' additionally.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
index 6e38a7d22e97..15b6a7bd2346 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
@@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ static void kvm_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
}
}
-static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool ex)
+static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
{
struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
struct hv_send_ipi_ex send_ipi_ex;
@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool
u32 vector;
bool all_cpus;
- if (!ex) {
+ if (hc->code == HVCALL_SEND_IPI) {
if (!hc->fast) {
if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &send_ipi,
sizeof(send_ipi))))
@@ -2279,14 +2279,14 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
break;
}
- ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, false);
+ ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
break;
case HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX:
if (unlikely(hc.fast || hc.rep)) {
ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
break;
}
- ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, true);
+ ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
break;
case HVCALL_POST_DEBUG_DATA:
case HVCALL_RETRIEVE_DEBUG_DATA:
--
2.35.1
On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 16:46 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> 'struct kvm_hv_hcall' has all the required information already,
> there's no need to pass 'ex' additionally.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index 6e38a7d22e97..15b6a7bd2346 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ static void kvm_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
> }
> }
>
> -static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool ex)
> +static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> {
> struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> struct hv_send_ipi_ex send_ipi_ex;
> @@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool
> u32 vector;
> bool all_cpus;
>
> - if (!ex) {
> + if (hc->code == HVCALL_SEND_IPI) {
I am thinking, if we already touch this code,
why not to use switch here instead on the hc->code,
so that we can catch this function being called with something else than
HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX
> if (!hc->fast) {
> if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &send_ipi,
> sizeof(send_ipi))))
> @@ -2279,14 +2279,14 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> break;
> }
> - ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, false);
> + ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
> break;
> case HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX:
> if (unlikely(hc.fast || hc.rep)) {
> ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> break;
> }
> - ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, true);
> + ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
> break;
> case HVCALL_POST_DEBUG_DATA:
> case HVCALL_RETRIEVE_DEBUG_DATA:
Other than this minor nitpick:
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Maxim Levitsky <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 16:46 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> 'struct kvm_hv_hcall' has all the required information already,
>> there's no need to pass 'ex' additionally.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
>> index 6e38a7d22e97..15b6a7bd2346 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
>> @@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ static void kvm_send_ipi_to_many(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vector,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool ex)
>> +static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>> {
>> struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
>> struct hv_send_ipi_ex send_ipi_ex;
>> @@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, bool
>> u32 vector;
>> bool all_cpus;
>>
>> - if (!ex) {
>> + if (hc->code == HVCALL_SEND_IPI) {
>
> I am thinking, if we already touch this code,
> why not to use switch here instead on the hc->code,
> so that we can catch this function being called with something else than
> HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX
I'm not against this second line of defense but kvm_hv_send_ipi() is
only called explicitly from kvm_hv_hypercall()'s switch so something is
really screwed up if we end up seeing something different from
HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX/HVCALL_SEND_IPI here.
I'm now working on a bigger series for TLB flush improvements, will use
your suggestion there, thanks!
>
>> if (!hc->fast) {
>> if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &send_ipi,
>> sizeof(send_ipi))))
>> @@ -2279,14 +2279,14 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>> break;
>> }
>> - ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, false);
>> + ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
>> break;
>> case HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX:
>> if (unlikely(hc.fast || hc.rep)) {
>> ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>> break;
>> }
>> - ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc, true);
>> + ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
>> break;
>> case HVCALL_POST_DEBUG_DATA:
>> case HVCALL_RETRIEVE_DEBUG_DATA:
>
>
>
> Other than this minor nitpick:
>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <[email protected]>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
--
Vitaly
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 04:46:39PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> 'struct kvm_hv_hcall' has all the required information already,
> there's no need to pass 'ex' additionally.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Siddharth Chandrasekaran <[email protected]>
Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Krausenstr. 38
10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Jonathan Weiss
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B
Sitz: Berlin
Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879