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] KVM: nVMX: Consult only the "basic" exit reason when
 routing nested exit
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
References: <20200227174430.26371-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <ee8c5eb6-9e3d-620b-d51f-bf0534a05d43@oracle.com>
 <20200227205153.GC17014@linux.intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <10a7327c-4f2b-bf44-1590-a33ae1cad604@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:57:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200227205153.GC17014@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 27/02/20 21:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> So part of me thinks the best way to resolve the printing would be to
> modify VMX_EXIT_REASONS to do "| VMX_EXIT_REASONS_FAILED_VMENTRY" where
> appropriate, i.e. on INVALID_STATE, MSR_LOAD_FAIL and MCE_DURING_VMENTRY.
> The downside of that approach is it breaks again when new modifiers come
> along, e.g. SGX's ENCLAVE_EXIT.  But again, the modifier is likely useful
> information.
> 
> I think the most foolproof and informative way to handle this would be to
> add a macro and/or helper function, e.g. kvm_print_vmx_exit_reason(), to
> wrap __print_symbolic(__entry->exit_code, VMX_EXIT_REASONS) so that it
> prints both the name of the basic exit reason as well as the names for
> any modifiers.
> 
> TL;DR: I still like this patch as is, especially since it'll be easy to
> backport.  I'll send a separate patch for the tracepoint issue.

Agreed, thanks.  I queued this one.

Paolo