On 17/04/20 21:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Ya, my vote would be to copy by value as well.
I'd rather avoid useless churn, because
vmx_x86_ops.nested = vmx_nested_ops;
is much uglier than
.nested = &vmx_nested_ops,
and with static calls the latter would not have any performance downside.
> I'd also be in favor of
> dropping the _ops part, e.g.
>
> struct kvm_x86_ops {
> struct kvm_x86_nested_ops nested;
>
> ...
> };
>
> and drop the "nested" parts from the ops, e.g.
>
> check_nested_events() -> check_events()
Agreed on both, I'll send v2 with these changes.
Paolo
