Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:34:22 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: Remove WARN_ON in
 kvm_arch_check_processor_compat
Message-ID: <YedcjqmGYekhPgec@google.com>
References: <20211227081515.2088920-1-chao.gao@intel.com>
 <20211227081515.2088920-6-chao.gao@intel.com>
 <Ydy6aIyI3jFQvF0O@google.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276DEA925C72AF585E7472C8C519@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Yd3fFxg3IjWPUIqH@google.com>
 <20220112110000.GA10249@gao-cwp>
 <Yd8RUJ6YpQrpe4Zf@google.com>
 <20220117133503.GA27833@gao-cwp>
 <20220117134608.GA30004@gao-cwp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220117134608.GA30004@gao-cwp>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 09:35:04PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> >OK. How about:
> >
> >	/*
> >	 * Compatibility checks are done when loading KVM or in KVM's CPU
> >	 * hotplug callback. It ensures all online CPUs are compatible before
> >	 * running any vCPUs. For other cases, compatibility checks are
> >	 * unnecessary or even problematic. Try to detect improper usages here.
> >	 */
> >	WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled() && !cpu_active(smp_processor_id()));
> 
> Sorry. It should be:
> 	WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled() && cpu_active(smp_processor_id()));

Nice!  That's exactly what I was hoping we could do.