On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 12:54 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 1/5/22 12:03, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > Hmm, my preference would be to keep the "return -1" even though apicv_active must > > > be rechecked. That would help highlight that returning "failure" after this point > > > is not an option as it would result in kvm_lapic_set_irr() being called twice. > > I don't mind either - this will fix the tracepoint I recently added to report the > > number of interrupts that were delivered by AVIC/APICv - with this patch, > > all of them count as such. > > Perhaps we can move the tracepoints in the delivery functions. This > also makes them more precise in the rare case where apicv_active changes > in the middle of the function. That is what I was thinking to do as well, but I don't mind returning the 'return -1' as well. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky > > Paolo >
