Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:52:40 +0000 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 14/39] KVM: nSVM: Keep track of Hyper-V hv_vm_id/hv_vp_id |
| |
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 :-)
| |