On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000,
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index f223c845ed6e..c99222b71fcc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_nested_ops {
> > };
> >
> > struct kvm_x86_init_ops {
> > - int (*check_processor_compatibility)(void);
> > + int (*check_processor_compatibility)(int cpu);
>
> Is this cpu argument used only for error message to include cpu number
> with avoiding repeating raw_smp_processor_id() in pr_err()?
Yep.
> The actual check is done on the current executing cpu.
>
> If cpu != raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu is wrong. Although the function is called
> in non-preemptive context, it's a bit confusing. So voting to remove it and
> to use.
What if I rename the param is this_cpu? I 100% agree the argument is confusing
as-is, but forcing all the helpers to manually grab the cpu is quite annoying.
