On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:57:18AM +0800,
Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static int __init vt_init(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int vcpu_size, vcpu_align;
> > + int r;
> > +
> > + if (!kvm_is_vmx_supported())
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Note, hv_init_evmcs() touches only VMX knobs, i.e. there's nothing
> > + * to unwind if a later step fails.
> > + */
> > + hv_init_evmcs();
> > +
> > + r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
> > + if (r)
> > + return r;
> > +
> > + r = vmx_init();
> > + if (r)
> > + goto err_vmx_init;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
> > + * exposed to userspace!
> > + */
> > + vcpu_size = sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx);
> > + vcpu_align = __alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx);
> > + r = kvm_init(vcpu_size, vcpu_align, THIS_MODULE);
> > + if (r)
> > + goto err_kvm_init;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> ---------------------------------
> > +err_kvm_init:
> > + vmx_exit();
> > +err_vmx_init:
> > + kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
> > + return r;
> > +}
> > +module_init(vt_init);
> > +
> ----------------------------------
> > +static void vt_exit(void)
> > +{
> > + kvm_exit();
> > + kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
> > + vmx_exit();
> ----------------------------------
>
> It seems the exiting sequences above are a little bit different with
> each other (PS: It is not a prob introduced in this patch):
>
> vmx_exit()
> kvm_x86_vendor_exit()
> ....
>
> and
>
> ...
> kvm_x86_vnedor_exit()
> vmx_exit()
>
> I was wondering which one should be correct. Literally, the exiting
> sequence would be in reversing order of the initialization sequence.
In theory, I think kvm_x86_vendor_exit() => vmx_exit() and
vmx_init() => kvm_x86_vendor_exit() should be the right order.
But in practice, it doesn't matter and I didn't want to touch the order with
this patch series.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
