Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:46:25 -0700 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 15/17] KVM: retpolines: x86: eliminate retpoline from vmx.c exit handlers |
| |
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:15:39AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 23/09/19 22:23, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > +int nested_vmx_handle_vmx_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +{ > > + switch (to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason) { > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMCLEAR: > > + return handle_vmclear(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMLAUNCH: > > + return handle_vmlaunch(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMPTRLD: > > + return handle_vmptrld(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMPTRST: > > + return handle_vmptrst(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMREAD: > > + return handle_vmread(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMRESUME: > > + return handle_vmresume(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMWRITE: > > + return handle_vmwrite(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMOFF: > > + return handle_vmoff(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMON: > > + return handle_vmon(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_INVEPT: > > + return handle_invept(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_INVVPID: > > + return handle_invvpid(vcpu); > > + case EXIT_REASON_VMFUNC: > > + return handle_vmfunc(vcpu); > > + } > > + > > Do you really need that? Why couldn't the handle_* functions simply be > exported from nested.c to vmx.c?
Nope, just personal preference to keep the nested code as isolated as possible. We use a similar approach for vmx_{g,s}et_vmx_msr().
Though if we do want to go this route, it'd be better to simply move handle_vmx_instruction() to nested.c instead of bouncing through that and nested_vmx_handle_vmx_instruction().
| |