Then?
>> On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>>> I think both are ok.
>>>> If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
>>>> if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
>>>> ==
>>>> -1)
>>>
>>> No, I don't think we need to add this.
>>
>> You don't, because the code will look like:
>>
>> if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
>> return;
>> if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
>> vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> if (max_irr == -1)
>> return;
>> and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
>> !nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
>
>I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is a hot point, it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this case, Wei's patch looks more reasonable.
>
>>
>> I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of Tiejun's patch.
>>
>> Paolo
>
>
>Best regards,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
