On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 04:39:39PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Unless it's functionally incorrect (Vitaly?), going with option (2) and > > naming the hook kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() seems like the obvious > > choice, e.g. the final cleanup gives this diff stat: > > (I apologize again for not replying in time) No worries, didn't hinder me in the slightest as I was buried in other stuff last week anyways. > I think this is a valid approach and your option (2) would also be my > choice. I also don't think there's going to be a problem when (if) > Hyper-V adds support for PML (eVMCSv2?). Cool, thanks!
