On Thu, 2022-12-15 at 16:11 -0800, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > > Btw2, by saying above, does it make sense to split patch "[PATCH v10 > > 105/108] > > KVM: TDX: Add methods to ignore accesses to CPU state" based on category > > such as > > MMU/interrupt, etc? Particularly, in that patch, some callbacks have WARN() > > or > > KVM_BUG_ON() against TD guest, but some don't. The logic behind those > > decisions > > highly depend on previous patches. To me, it makes more sense to just move > > logic related things together. > > Ok, I'll split it up to cpu states/KVM MMU/interrupt parts. If I recall correctly, originally (long time ago before starting to upstream), what we did was we have a patch to make all kvm_x86_ops callback KVM_BUG_ON() for TDX guest, then we fix those KVM_BUG_ON() in later patches in separate patches. We don't need to do the exact same way, but this also seems reasonable to me. For instance, at the beginning we can mark KVM_BUG_ON() for all callbacks which reads/writes CPU states (which is reasonable anyway), and in later patches we remove the KVM_BUG_ON() if needed when handling specific logic. Simply my 2cents above. Just for your reference. My real comment is we should put relevant parts together so it's easy to review.
