On 3/1/22 18:25, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
I don't like this change. It's not bad code, but it'll be confusing because it
implies that it's legal for svm->vmcb to be something other than svm->vmcb01.ptr
when this is called.
Honestly I don't see how you had reached this conclusion.
I just think that code that always works on vmcb01
should use it, even if it happens that vmcb == vmcb01.
If you insist I can drop this patch or add WARN_ON instead,
I just think that this way is cleaner.
I do like the patch, but you should do the same in init_vmcb() and
svm_hv_init_vmcb() as well.
Paolo
