> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:01 PM > To: Kechen Lu <kechenl@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx; > vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; mst@xxxxxxxxxx; Somdutta Roy > <somduttar@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86: add vCPU ioctl for HLT exits > disable capability > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Does your use case require toggling intercepts? Or is the configuration > static? > > If it's static, then the easiest thing would be to follow the per-VM > > behavior so that there are no suprises. If toggling is required, then > > I think the best thing would be to add a prep patch to add an override > > flag to the per-VM ioctl, and then share code between the per-VM and > > per-vCPU paths for modifying the flags (attached as patch 0003). > > ... > > > If toggling is not required, then I still think it makes sense to add > > a macro to handle propagating the capability args to the arch flags. > > Almost forgot. Can you please add a selftests to verify whatever per-VM and > per-vCPU behavior we end implementing? Thanks! Sure, will add selftests for per-VM and per-vCPU disable exits cap. Thanks, Kechen
