On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:25:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 25/09/2013 13:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> > > @@ -1921,8 +1920,7 @@ static void vmx_queue_exception(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>> > > *vcpu, unsigned nr,
> >>> > > struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> >>> > > u32 intr_info = nr | INTR_INFO_VALID_MASK;
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - if (!reinject && nr == PF_VECTOR && is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> >>> > > - !vmx->nested.nested_run_pending && nested_pf_handled(vcpu))
> >>> > > + if (!reinject && is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_ex_handled(vcpu,
> >>> > > nr))
> >> >
> >> > The code is now pretty similar to what svm.c does. Do we want to move
> >> > the is_guest_mode(vcpu) check into nested_ex_handled, too? (Or vice
> >> > versa, take it out in svm.c). Perhaps you could also name the function
> >> > nested_vmx_check_exception.
> >> >
> > I want to try to move the logic into common code eventually. I do not
> > mind renaming for now, but it will have to wait for the next week :)
>
> I can rename while applying the patch. Making more logic common to vmx
> and svm can wait.
>
Yes, of course, logic unification is not for the immediate feature.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
