On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 07:26:34AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 07:58:49AM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> > > index 0bb93879abfe..9850ed01e16e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> > > @@ -434,14 +434,15 @@ static inline void vmcb_mark_dirty(struct vmcb
> > > *vmcb, int bit)
> > > vmcb->control.clean &= ~(1 << bit);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline bool vmcb_is_dirty(struct vmcb *vmcb, int bit)
> >
> > Huh, I assume the removed of vmcb_is_dirty() was not intentional?
>
> Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, IMO it's a good change. KVM
> should never check vmcb12 directly, and I can't think of a legitimate case
> where
> KVM should condition its behavior on vmcb0{1,2} being clean/dirty.
Funny enough, I removed all usages of vmcb_is_dirty() in my series, I
just didn't drop it:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/[email protected]/
So Jim was cleaning up after me :)
>
> Unless a v5 is needed, I'll split it to a separate patch when applying.
