On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 07:05:30PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/04/19 18:08, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Good point, though IMO it'd be better to go one step further and actually > > consume the return value in nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode(). For me, > > having the exit reason in nested_vmx_check_vmentry_postreqs() is a nice > > mental reminder that "postreqs" is referring to checks that happen once > > the CPU has "committed" to VM-Enter. > > It's certainly better if you don't have to return > VMX_EXIT_REASONS_FAILED_VMENTRY. However, I think it still complicates > things a bit, after all the result is always EXIT_REASON_INVALID_STATE. > > The SDM says "VM-entry failure due to invalid guest state. A VM entry > failed one of the checks identified in Section 26.3.1" so the bool (or > 0/-EINVAL) return code is a nice reminder that the function covers a > subset of 26.3.1. Heh, for me, returning EXIT_REASON_INVALID_STATE is the reminder that the function covers 26.3.1. What if we rename the function to nested_vmx_check_vmentry_guest_state()? My desire to return the exit reason mostly stems from the name "postreqs" since I tend to forget what "postreqs" is referring to. And it'd be more appropriate since the MSR load checks are handled elsewhere and really should be considered "postreqs" as well.
