On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:37:31PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 18/12/19 23:24, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I've lost track of the problem you're trying to solve, but if you do > > something like "vcpu_smm=false", explicitly pass an address space ID > > instead of hardcoding x86 specific SMM crud, e.g. > > > > kvm_vcpu_write*(..., as_id=0); > > And the point of having kvm_vcpu_* vs. kvm_write_* was exactly to not > having to hardcode the address space ID. If anything you could add a > __kvm_vcpu_write_* API that takes vcpu+as_id, but really I'd prefer to > keep kvm_get_running_vcpu() for now and then it can be refactored later. > There are already way too many memory r/w APIs... Yeah actuall that's why I wanted to start working on that just in case it could help to unify all of them some day (and since we did go a few steps forward on that when discussing the dirty ring). But yeah kvm_get_running_vcpu() for sure works for us already; let's go the easy way this time. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
