On 2/7/20 3:53 AM, Auger Eric wrote: [snip] >>> + >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_TYPE_INTR SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_INTR >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_TYPE_NMI SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_NMI >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_TYPE_EXEPT SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_EXEPT >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_TYPE_SOFT SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_SOFT >> ^^^^^^ >> TAB instead of SPACE > > as written in the history log (but I think I will add this to the commit > msg too), this file is an exact copy of arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h > (except the header includer #ifdef + uapi/asm/svm.h header inclusion. So > it inherits the style issue of its parent ;-) >> >>> + >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_VALID SVM_EVTINJ_VALID >>> +#define SVM_EXITINTINFO_VALID_ERR SVM_EVTINJ_VALID_ERR >>> + >>> +#define SVM_EXITINFOSHIFT_TS_REASON_IRET 36 >>> +#define SVM_EXITINFOSHIFT_TS_REASON_JMP 38 >>> +#define SVM_EXITINFOSHIFT_TS_HAS_ERROR_CODE 44 >>> + >>> +#define SVM_EXITINFO_REG_MASK 0x0F >>> + >>> +#define SVM_CR0_SELECTIVE_MASK (X86_CR0_TS | X86_CR0_MP) >>> + >>> +#endif /* SELFTEST_KVM_SVM_H */ >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/svm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/svm_util.h >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..6a67a89c5d06 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/svm_util.h >>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >>> +/* >>> + * tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/svm_utils.h >>> + * Header for nested SVM testing >>> + * >>> + * Copyright (C) 2020, Red Hat, Inc. >>> + */ >>> + >>> +#ifndef SELFTEST_KVM_SVM_UTILS_H >>> +#define SELFTEST_KVM_SVM_UTILS_H >>> + >>> +#include <stdint.h> >>> +#include "svm.h" >>> +#include "processor.h" >>> + >>> +#define CPUID_SVM_BIT 2 >>> +#define CPUID_SVM BIT_ULL(CPUID_SVM_BIT) >>> + >>> +#define SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL 0x081 >> >> SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL is better to relocate to svm.h file as it is an >> architecture definition. > For the same reason I am tempted to leave this definition here for now. > Maybe at some point if we introduce some additional ones, this will > indeed deserve to be moved to the parent? Is it ok? > I figured out this was your intention when I compared arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h with tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/svm.h. However I also noticed that vmx.h in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/ is not identical as arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h. So being the same isn't a hard requirement. I am OK with either way. -Wei
