On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:06:07PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > index d98eac371c0a..cc1f98130e6a 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > @@ -5214,7 +5214,7 @@ static void grow_ple_window(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > if (vmx->ple_window != old)
> > > > vmx->ple_window_dirty = true;
> > > >
> > > > - trace_kvm_ple_window_grow(vcpu->vcpu_id, vmx->ple_window, old);
> > > > + trace_kvm_ple_window_changed(vcpu->vcpu_id, vmx->ple_window, old);
> > >
> > > No need for the macro, the snippet right about already checks 'new != old'.
> > > Though I do like the rename, i.e. rename the trace function to
> > > trace_kvm_ple_window_changed().
> >
> > Do you mean this one?
> >
> > if (vmx->ple_window != old)
> > vmx->ple_window_dirty = true;
>
> Yep.
>
> > It didn't return, did it? :)
>
> You lost me. What's wrong with:
>
> if (vmx->ple_window != old) {
> vmx->ple_window_dirty = true;
> trace_kvm_ple_window_update(vcpu->vcpu_id, vmx_ple->window, old);
> }
Yes this looks fine to me. I'll switch.
Regards,
--
Peter Xu
