On 12/4/2023 4:25 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 06:55:30AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
To match vmx_exit cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
index 266760865ed8..e07bec005eda 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
@@ -180,11 +180,11 @@ static int __init vt_init(void)
*/
hv_init_evmcs();
- r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
+ r = vmx_init();
if (r)
- return r;
+ goto err_vmx_init;
this is incorrect. vmx_exit() shouldn't be called if
vmx_init() failed.
- r = vmx_init();
+ r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
if (r)
goto err_vmx_init;
And also, maybe better to rename the lable, e.g, err_vendor_init?
@@ -201,9 +201,9 @@ static int __init vt_init(void)
return 0;
err_kvm_init:
- vmx_exit();
-err_vmx_init:
kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
+err_vmx_init:
+ vmx_exit();
return r;
}
module_init(vt_init);
--
2.25.1
