On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:21:28AM +0800,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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().
Ah, you mean "only" first sentence. Ok. I'll move it.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
