On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 15:08 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 00:34 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -455,13 +461,8 @@ static void avic_kick_target_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *source,
> > > */
> > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > if (kvm_apic_match_dest(vcpu, source, icrl & APIC_SHORT_MASK,
> > > - dest, icrl & APIC_DEST_MASK)) {
> > > - vcpu->arch.apic->irr_pending = true;
> > > - svm_complete_interrupt_delivery(vcpu,
> > > - icrl & APIC_MODE_MASK,
> > > - icrl & APIC_INT_LEVELTRIG,
> > > - icrl & APIC_VECTOR_MASK);
> > > - }
> > > + dest, icrl & APIC_DEST_MASK))
> > > + avic_kick_vcpu(vcpu, icrl);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I don't know what I think about this, sometimes *minor* code duplication
> > might actually be a good thing, as it is easier to read the code, but I don't
> > have much against this as well.
> >
> > I am not sure if before or after this code is more readable.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either. I think I prefer having the helper, but
> have no objection to leaving things as is. Originally I was thinking there was
> going to be a third call site, but that didn't happen.
>
Yep - when something is duplicated 3 times, it is really rare to not want to have a helper,
Anyway I don't have a strong opinion about this either.
I mostly was unsure about the fact that helper receives icrl and not icrh, kind of wierd,
but anyway let it be.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
