Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:00:38 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Kechen Lu <kechenl@nvidia.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, somduttar@nvidia.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86: add vCPU ioctl for HLT exits
 disable capability
Message-ID: <YdyediQZQPB7h/kU@google.com>
References: <20211221090449.15337-1-kechenl@nvidia.com>
 <20211221090449.15337-4-kechenl@nvidia.com>
 <Ydyda6K8FrFveZX7@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ydyda6K8FrFveZX7@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Does your use case require toggling intercepts?  Or is the configuration static?
> If it's static, then the easiest thing would be to follow the per-VM behavior so
> that there are no suprises.  If toggling is required, then I think the best thing
> would be to add a prep patch to add an override flag to the per-VM ioctl, and then
> share code between the per-VM and per-vCPU paths for modifying the flags (attached
> as patch 0003).

...
 
> If toggling is not required, then I still think it makes sense to add a macro to
> handle propagating the capability args to the arch flags.

Almost forgot.  Can you please add a selftests to verify whatever per-VM and
per-vCPU behavior we end implementing?  Thanks!