From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:31:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200323163136.GO28711@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o8sn82ef.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 05:24:56PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:10:40PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > + .runtime_ops = &svm_x86_ops,
> >> > +};
> >>
> >> Unrelated to your patch but I think we can make the naming of some of
> >> these functions more consistend on SVM/VMX, in particular I'd suggest
> >>
> >> has_svm() -> cpu_has_svm_support()
> >> is_disabled -> svm_disabled_by_bios()
> >> ...
> >> (see below for VMX)
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > static int __init svm_init(void)
> >> > {
> >> > - return kvm_init(&svm_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> >> > + return kvm_init(&svm_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> >> > __alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> > index 07299a957d4a..ffcdcc86f5b7 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> > @@ -7842,11 +7842,8 @@ static bool vmx_check_apicv_inhibit_reasons(ulong bit)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> >> > - .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> >> > - .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> >> > - .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> >> > .hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
> >> > - .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> >> > +
> >> > .hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
> >> > .hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
> >> > .cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
> >> > @@ -7981,6 +7978,15 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> >> > .apic_init_signal_blocked = vmx_apic_init_signal_blocked,
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > +static struct kvm_x86_init_ops vmx_init_ops __initdata = {
> >> > + .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> >> > + .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> >> > + .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> >> > + .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> >>
> >> cpu_has_kvm_support() -> cpu_has_vmx_support()
> >> hardware_setup() -> vmx_hardware_setup()
> >
> > Preaching to the choir on this one. The VMX functions without prefixes in
> > in particular annoy me to no end, e.g. hardware_setup(). Though the worst
> > is probably ".vcpu_create = vmx_create_vcpu", if I had a nickel for every
> > time I've tried to find vmx_vcpu_create()...
> >
> > What if we added a macro to auto-generate the common/required hooks? E.g.:
> >
> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > MANDATORY_KVM_X86_OPS(vmx),
> >
> > .pmu_ops = &intel_pmu_ops,
> >
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > That'd enforce consistent naming, and would provide a bit of documentation
> > as to which hooks are optional, e.g. many of the nested hooks, and which
> > must be defined for KVM to function.
>
> Sounds cool! (not sure that with only two implementations people won't
> call it 'over-engineered' but cool). My personal wish would just be that
> function names in function implementations are not auto-generated so
> e.g. a simple 'git grep vmx_hardware_setup' works but the way how we
> fill vmx_x86_ops in can be macroed I guess.
Ya, I was thinking of just the macro. Even that has downsides though, e.g.
chasing kvm_x86_ops.hardware_setup() to find VMX's hardware_setup() becomes
a bit kludgy. On the other hand, _if_ you know how the fill macro works,
getting to the implementation should be easier.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-23 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-21 20:25 [PATCH v3 0/9] KVM: Move x86 init ops to separate struct Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] KVM: Pass kvm_init()'s opaque param to additional arch funcs Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 1:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:10 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 15:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:24 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-03-23 19:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] KVM: VMX: Move hardware_setup() definition below vmx_x86_ops Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:12 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] KVM: VMX: Configure runtime hooks using vmx_x86_ops Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: x86: Set kvm_x86_ops only after ->hardware_setup() completes Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] KVM: x86: Copy kvm_x86_ops by value to eliminate layer of indirection Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:44 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: x86: Drop __exit from kvm_x86_ops' hardware_unsetup() Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] KVM: VMX: Annotate vmx_x86_ops as __initdata Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] KVM: SVM: Annotate svm_x86_ops " Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200323163136.GO28711@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).