Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:52:40 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@amazon.de>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 14/39] KVM: nSVM: Keep track of Hyper-V
 hv_vm_id/hv_vp_id
Message-ID: <Yyy9CH9CgCsZ3m3V@google.com>
References: <20220921152436.3673454-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20220921152436.3673454-15-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <Yyt/Nrh4aoLrNt11@google.com>
 <87y1ubn3e9.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y1ubn3e9.fsf@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> > I'm definitely not dead set against having hyperv.{ch}, but unless there's a high
> > probability of SVM+Hyper-V getting to eVMCS levels of enlightenment, my vote is
> > to put these helpers in svm/nested.c and move then if/when we do end up accumulating
> > more SVM+Hyper-V code.
> 
> Well, there's more on the TODO list :-) There are even nSVM-only
> features like "enlightened TLB" (to split ASID invalidations into two
> stages) so I don't want to pollute 'nested.c'. In fact, I was thinking
> about renaming vmx/evmcs.{ch} into vmx/hyperv.{ch} as we're doing more
> than eVMCS there already. Also, having separate files help with the
> newly introduces 'KVM X86 HYPER-V (KVM/hyper-v)' MAINTAINERS entry.

Ya, there is that.

> Does this sound like a good enough justification for keeping hyperv.{ch}?

Your call, I'm totally ok either way.  If we do add svm/hyperv.{ch}, my vote is
to also rename vmx/evmcs.{ch} as you suggested.  I like symmetry :-)