On 10/15/2019 2:37 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@intel.com> writes:
They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
and SVM. Make them common functions.
No functional change intended.
Would it rather make sense to move this code to
kvm_arch_vcpu_create()/kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() instead?
Does it make sense? Yes. Would it actually work? No. Well, not without
other shenanigans.
FPU allocation can't be placed after the call to .create_vcpu() becuase
it's consumed in kvm_arch_vcpu_init(). FPU allocation can't come before
.create_vcpu() because the vCPU struct itself hasn't been allocated. The
latter could be solved by passed the FPU pointer into .create_vcpu(), but
that's a bit ugly and is not a precedent we want to set.
That's exactly what I found.
At a glance, FPU allocation can be moved to kvm_arch_vcpu_init(), maybe
right before the call to fx_init().
Yeah, putting here is better.
I'm wondering the semantic of create, init, setup. There are
vcpu_{create,init,setup}, and IIUC, vcpu_create is mainly for data
structure allocation and vcpu_{init,setup} should be for data structure
initialization/setup (and maybe they could/should merge into one)
But I feel the current codes for vcpu creation a bit messed, especially
of vmx.
