On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:25:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 25/09/2013 13:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto: > >>> > > @@ -1921,8 +1920,7 @@ static void vmx_queue_exception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned nr, > >>> > > struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu); > >>> > > u32 intr_info = nr | INTR_INFO_VALID_MASK; > >>> > > > >>> > > - if (!reinject && nr == PF_VECTOR && is_guest_mode(vcpu) && > >>> > > - !vmx->nested.nested_run_pending && nested_pf_handled(vcpu)) > >>> > > + if (!reinject && is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_ex_handled(vcpu, nr)) > >> > > >> > The code is now pretty similar to what svm.c does. Do we want to move > >> > the is_guest_mode(vcpu) check into nested_ex_handled, too? (Or vice > >> > versa, take it out in svm.c). Perhaps you could also name the function > >> > nested_vmx_check_exception. > >> > > > I want to try to move the logic into common code eventually. I do not > > mind renaming for now, but it will have to wait for the next week :) > > I can rename while applying the patch. Making more logic common to vmx > and svm can wait. > Yes, of course, logic unification is not for the immediate feature. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
