On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:34:10PM +0000, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Makes sense. Let's settle it with this_cpu. -- Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>