Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
>> > and SVM. Make them common functions.
>> >
>> > No functional change intended.
>>
>> Would it rather make sense to move this code to
>> kvm_arch_vcpu_create()/kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() instead?
>
> Does it make sense? Yes. Would it actually work? No. Well, not without
> other shenanigans.
>
> FPU allocation can't be placed after the call to .create_vcpu() becuase
> it's consumed in kvm_arch_vcpu_init(). FPU allocation can't come before
> .create_vcpu() because the vCPU struct itself hasn't been allocated.
A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code and then fill in
vendor-specific details in .create_vcpu().
--
Vitaly
