Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] vvmx: replace vmreturn() by vmsucceed() and vmfail*()

[Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/14/16 11:55 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/12/16 11:29, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
> > Replace vmreturn() by vmsucceed(), vmfail(), vmfail_valid() and
> > vmfail_invalid(), which are consistent to the pseudo code on Intel
> > SDM, and allow to return VM instruction error numbers to L1
> > hypervisor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > * This patch is based on my patchset "[PATCH v2 0/4] vvmx: fix L1 vmxon".
> >
> > * I'm not sure whether this patch by itself makes sense or should be sent
> >   with additional bugfix patches, so I tag it as RFC. Explanation: besides
> >   returning error numbers, this patch does not fix other bugs in the individual
> >   nvmx_handle_*() function, so the error numbers used (especially) for L1
> >   vmclear, vmptrld and vmwrite are still inconsistent to Intel SDM, or even
> >   incorrect.
> If I were doing this work, I would purposefully split an API improvement
> like this into a separate patch(s) as bugfixes to do with the use of the
> API.
>
> I think a change like this is fine even without the other bugfixes, as
> it is still an improvement.  (Of course, if you have time, it would
> certainly be better to do the other bugfixes as well).
Bugfixes for VMX instructions are already on my TODO list, though they
are of lower priority than my other tasks.

Haozhong

> As for the patch itself, LGTM.
>
> ~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel