Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Xiaoyao Li <[email protected]> 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.
A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code and then fill in vendor-specific details in .create_vcpu(). -- Vitaly
