On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:05:44PM -0400, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:
> ..as there is no need for a separate function
>
> Signed-off-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Karl Heubaum <karl.heubaum@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 30 +++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index f1a69117ac0f..4643eb3a97f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -1963,28 +1963,24 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> vmx_set_constant_host_state(vmx);
> }
>
> -static void prepare_vmcs02_early_full(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx,
> - struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
> -{
> - prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx);
> -
> - vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull);
> -
> - if (enable_vpid) {
> - if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02)
> - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->nested.vpid02);
> - else
> - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid);
> - }
> -}
> -
> static void prepare_vmcs02_early(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
> {
> u32 exec_control, vmcs12_exec_ctrl;
> u64 guest_efer = nested_vmx_calc_efer(vmx, vmcs12);
>
> - if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> - prepare_vmcs02_early_full(vmx, vmcs12);
> + if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) {
> + prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx);
> +
> + vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull);
> +
> + if (enable_vpid) {
> + if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02)
> + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID,
> + vmx->nested.vpid02);
> + else
> + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid);
> + }
> + }
My vote is to keep the separate helper. I agree that it's a bit
superfluous, but I really like having symmetry across the "early" and
"late" prepartion flows, i.e. there's value in having both
prepare_vmcs02_full() and prepare_vmcs02_early_full().
>
> /*
> * PIN CONTROLS
> --
> 2.20.1
>
