On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I'm definitely not dead set against having hyperv.{ch}, but unless there's a high
> > probability of SVM+Hyper-V getting to eVMCS levels of enlightenment, my vote is
> > to put these helpers in svm/nested.c and move then if/when we do end up accumulating
> > more SVM+Hyper-V code.
>
> Well, there's more on the TODO list :-) There are even nSVM-only
> features like "enlightened TLB" (to split ASID invalidations into two
> stages) so I don't want to pollute 'nested.c'. In fact, I was thinking
> about renaming vmx/evmcs.{ch} into vmx/hyperv.{ch} as we're doing more
> than eVMCS there already. Also, having separate files help with the
> newly introduces 'KVM X86 HYPER-V (KVM/hyper-v)' MAINTAINERS entry.
Ya, there is that.
> Does this sound like a good enough justification for keeping hyperv.{ch}?
Your call, I'm totally ok either way. If we do add svm/hyperv.{ch}, my vote is
to also rename vmx/evmcs.{ch} as you suggested. I like symmetry :-)
