On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 11:53 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 03:20:06PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > > > +void vm_init_trap_vector_tables(struct kvm_vm *vm); > > > +void vcpu_init_trap_vector_tables(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > > > > I think we should use a common name for these prototypes that the other > > architectures agree to and then put them in a common header. My vote for > > the naming is, > > Just allocate the tables in kvm_arch_vm_post_create(). I've been meaning to > convert x86 and ARM, but keep getting distracted/waylaid by other things. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y8hCBOndYMD9zsDL@xxxxxxxxxx > > > void vm_init_vector_tables(struct kvm_vm *vm); > > void vcpu_init_vector_tables(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > > > > > + > > > +typedef void(*handler_fn)(struct ex_regs *); > > > +void vm_install_exception_handler(struct kvm_vm *vm, int ec, handler_fn handler); > > > > I'd also put this typedef > > And rename it to (*exception_handler_fn). > > > and prototype in a common header (with s/ec/vector/ to what you have here) > > Hmm, yeah, I think it makes sense to let vm_install_exception_handler() be used > from common code. the vector to be installed is inherently arch specific, but > it would be easy enough for a test to use #ifdeffery to define the correct vector. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have a try to consolidate these codes in v2.
