Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99822-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:42:57 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, erdemaktas@google.com,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, tina.zhang@intel.com,
	isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 022/130] KVM: x86/vmx: Refactor KVM VMX module
 init/exit functions
Message-ID: <20240312044257.GH935089@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <11d5ae6a1102a50b0e773fc7efd949bb0bd2b776.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <aa5359e5-46a3-48d0-b4af-3b812b4c93ae@intel.com>
 <20240312021524.GG935089@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <c7be9930-26e7-454c-87f6-c8cdf2fce481@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c7be9930-26e7-454c-87f6-c8cdf2fce481@intel.com>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:21:28AM +0800,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 3/12/24 10:15, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >>> -
> >>> -	__vmx_exit();
> >>> -}
> >>> -module_exit(vmx_exit);
> >>> -
> >>> -static int __init vmx_init(void)
> >>> +int __init vmx_init(void)
> >>>   {
> >>>   	int r, cpu;
> >>> -	if (!kvm_is_vmx_supported())
> >>> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>> -
> >>> -	/*
> >>> -	 * Note, hv_init_evmcs() touches only VMX knobs, i.e. there's nothing
> >>> -	 * to unwind if a later step fails.
> >>> -	 */
> >>> -	hv_init_evmcs();
> >>> -
> >>> -	/* vmx_hardware_disable() accesses loaded_vmcss_on_cpu. */
> >>> -	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> >>> -		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(loaded_vmcss_on_cpu, cpu));
> >>> -
> >>> -	r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
> >>> -	if (r)
> >>> -		return r;
> >>> -
> >>>   	/*
> >>>   	 * Must be called after common x86 init so enable_ept is properly set
> >>>   	 * up. Hand the parameter mitigation value in which was stored in
> >> I am wondering whether the first sentence of above comment should be
> >> moved to vt_init()? So vt_init() has whole information about the init
> >> sequence.
> > If we do so, we should move the call of "vmx_setup_l1d_flush() to vt_init().
> > I hesitated to remove static of vmx_setup_l1d_flush().
> I meant this one:
>  "Must be called after common x86 init so enable_ept is properly set up"
> 
> Not necessary to move vmx_setup_l1d_flush().

Ah, you mean "only" first sentence. Ok. I'll move it.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>