У пн, 2023-10-02 у 12:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson пише: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Hi! > > > > This patch allows AVIC's ICR emulation to be optional and thus allows > > to workaround AVIC's errata #1235 by disabling this portion of the feature. > > > > This is v3 of my patch series 'AVIC bugfixes and workarounds' including > > review feedback. > > Please respond to my idea[*] instead of sending more patches. Hi, For the v2 of the patch I was already on the fence if to do it this way or to refactor the code, and back when I posted it, I decided still to avoid the refactoring. However, your idea of rewriting this patch, while it does change less lines of code, is even less obvious and consequently required you to write even longer comment to justify it which is not a good sign. In particular I don't want someone to find out later, and in the hard way that sometimes real physid table is accessed, and sometimes a fake copy of it is. So I decided to fix the root cause by not reading the physid table back, which made the code cleaner, and even with the workaround the code IMHO is still simpler than it was before. About the added 'vcpu->loaded' variable, I added it also because it is something that is long overdue to be added, I remember that in IPIv code there was also a need for this, and probalby more places in KVM can be refactored to take advantage of it, instead of various hacks. I did adopt your idea of using 'enable_ipiv', although I am still not 100% sure that this is more readable than 'avic_zen2_workaround'. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky > I'm not opposed to > a different approach, but we need to have an actual discussion around the pros and > cons, and hopefully come to an agreement. This cover letter doesn't even acknowledge > that there is an alternative proposal, let alone justify why the vcpu->loaded > approach was taken. > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZRYxPNeq1rnp-M0f@xxxxxxxxxx >
