Avi Kivity wrote: > Dong, Eddie wrote: >> I noticed the MACRO for SVM vmcb->control.event_inj and VMX >> VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO are almost same, I have a need to query the event >> injection situation in common code so plan to expose this register >> read/write to x86.c. Should we define a new format for >> evtinj/VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO as common KVM format, or just move those >> original MACRO to kvm_host.h? >> >> > > This is dangerous if additional bits or field values are defined by > either architecture. Better to use accessors. OK. Also back to Gleb's question, the reason I want to do that is to simplify event generation mechanism in current KVM. Today KVM use additional layer of exception/nmi/interrupt such as vcpu.arch.exception.pending, vcpu->arch.interrupt.pending & vcpu->arch.nmi_injected. All those additional layer is due to compete of VM_ENTRY_INTR_INFO_FIELD write to inject the event. Both SVM & VMX has only one resource to inject the virtual event but KVM generates 3 catagory of events in parallel which further requires additional logic to dictate among them. One example is that exception has higher priority than NMI/IRQ injection in current code which is not true in reality. Another issue is that an failed event from previous injection say IRQ or NMI may be discarded if an virtual exception happens in the EXIT handling now. With the patch of generic double fault handling, this case should be handled as normally. Will post RFC soon. Thx, eddie-- 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
