On 3/12/24 10:15, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>> -
>>> - __vmx_exit();
>>> -}
>>> -module_exit(vmx_exit);
>>> -
>>> -static int __init vmx_init(void)
>>> +int __init vmx_init(void)
>>> {
>>> int r, cpu;
>>> - 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();
>>> -
>>> - /* vmx_hardware_disable() accesses loaded_vmcss_on_cpu. */
>>> - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>>> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(loaded_vmcss_on_cpu, cpu));
>>> -
>>> - r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
>>> - if (r)
>>> - return r;
>>> -
>>> /*
>>> * Must be called after common x86 init so enable_ept is properly set
>>> * up. Hand the parameter mitigation value in which was stored in
>> I am wondering whether the first sentence of above comment should be
>> moved to vt_init()? So vt_init() has whole information about the init
>> sequence.
> If we do so, we should move the call of "vmx_setup_l1d_flush() to vt_init().
> I hesitated to remove static of vmx_setup_l1d_flush().
I meant this one:
"Must be called after common x86 init so enable_ept is properly set up"
Not necessary to move vmx_setup_l1d_flush().
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
> --
