Re: [XEN PATCH v1 02/15] x86/hvm: guard AMD-V and Intel VT-x hvm_function_table initializers

[Sergiy Kibrik <sergiy_kibrik@xxxxxxxx>]

18.04.24 14:18, Jan Beulich:
> On 16.04.2024 08:22, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -156,9 +156,9 @@ static int __init cf_check hvm_enable(void)
> >   {
> >       const struct hvm_function_table *fns = NULL;
> >   
> > -    if ( cpu_has_vmx )
> > +    if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VMX) && cpu_has_vmx )
> >           fns = start_vmx();
> > -    else if ( cpu_has_svm )
> > +    else if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SVM) && cpu_has_svm )
> >           fns = start_svm();
> Do we have or do we foresee any uses of cpu_has_{vmx,svm} that are relevant
> when CONFIG_{VMX,SVM}=n respectively? If not, I'd prefer if the IS_ENABLED()
> would be folded right into the definitions of cpu_has_{vmx,svm}, as is
> already done for a few other CONFIG_*.
>
> Jan
looks nice, will do it

  -Sergiy