Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] KVM: retpolines: x86: eliminate retpoline from
 vmx.c exit handlers
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190920212509.2578-1-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <20190920212509.2578-16-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <87o8zb8ik1.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <20190923163746.GE18195@linux.intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <24dc5c23-eed8-22db-fd15-5a165a67e747@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:53:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190923163746.GE18195@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 23/09/19 18:37, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Would it be too much if we get rid of
>> kvm_vmx_exit_handlers completely replacing this code with one switch()?
> Hmm, that'd require redirects for nVMX functions since they are set at
> runtime.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The approach could also be
> used if Paolo's idea of making kvm_vmx_max_exit_handlers const allows the
> compiler to avoid retpoline.

But aren't switch statements also retpolin-ized if they use a jump table?

Paolo