On 23/09/19 18:37, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> Would it be too much if we get rid of >> kvm_vmx_exit_handlers completely replacing this code with one switch()? > Hmm, that'd require redirects for nVMX functions since they are set at > runtime. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. The approach could also be > used if Paolo's idea of making kvm_vmx_max_exit_handlers const allows the > compiler to avoid retpoline.
But aren't switch statements also retpolin-ized if they use a jump table? Paolo
