On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 06:35:40PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 22:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Side topic, do we actually need 'initialized'? Wouldn't checking for a > > valid nested.msrpm or nested.hsave suffice? > > It a matter of taste - I prefer to have a single variable controlling this, > rather than two. > a WARN_ON(svm->nested.initialized && !svm->nested.msrpm || !svm->nested.hsave)) > would probably be nice to have. IMHO I rather leave this like it is if you > don't object. I don't have a strong preference. I wouldn't bother with the second WARN_ON. Unless you take action, e.g. bail early, a NULL pointer will likely provide a stack trace soon enough :-).
