On 03/10/2018 16:53, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Isn't enable_apicv redundant with kvm_vcpu_apicv_active()? And since > getting RVI requires a VMREAD, I think it would make sense to only > fall into this code if !evaluate_pending_interrupts, e.g.: > > if (!evaluate_pending_interrupts && kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu)) > evaluate_pending_interrupts |= vmx_get_rvi() > 0; Yes, both suggestions make sense. I'll make it likely(!evaluate_pending_interrupts). Thanks to both you and Nikita for the quick review! Paolo
