| Message ID | 1248872192-30881-12-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Joerg Roedel wrote: > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> Acked-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> I'm really starting to miss comments on the commits ... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/29/2009 05:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> Joerg Roedel wrote: >> >>> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel<joerg.roedel@amd.com> >>> >> >> Acked-by: Alexander Graf<agraf@suse.de> >> >> I'm really starting to miss comments on the commits ... >> > > Me too. Why ack then? Because the patch is fine. It's just the description that's missing. Shouldn't I ack when the only thing I don't like is the description? Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/29/2009 05:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > Joerg Roedel wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel<joerg.roedel@amd.com> >> > > Acked-by: Alexander Graf<agraf@suse.de> > > I'm really starting to miss comments on the commits ... > Me too. Why ack then? Joerg, not only is this interesting, it is also complicated. Please provide more detailed change logs. The change, motivation, if a fix, what scenario does it fix.
Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/29/2009 05:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> Me too. Why ack then? >>> >> >> Because the patch is fine. It's just the description that's missing. >> Shouldn't I ack when the only thing I don't like is the description? >> > > The description is part of the patch, an important one. Ok, no ack for empty description patches then :-). Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/29/2009 05:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> Me too. Why ack then? >> > > Because the patch is fine. It's just the description that's missing. > Shouldn't I ack when the only thing I don't like is the description? > The description is part of the patch, an important one.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c index 1a44e43..381ed38 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c @@ -1498,6 +1498,9 @@ static int nested_svm_exit_handled_msr(struct vcpu_svm *svm, return 0; } +/* + * If this function returns true, this #vmexit was already handled + */ static int nested_svm_exit_handled(struct vcpu_svm *svm, bool kvm_override) { u32 exit_code = svm->vmcb->control.exit_code; @@ -1515,8 +1518,27 @@ static int nested_svm_exit_handled(struct vcpu_svm *svm, bool kvm_override) break; /* When we're shadowing, trap PFs */ case SVM_EXIT_EXCP_BASE + PF_VECTOR: - if (!npt_enabled) - return 0; + if (!npt_enabled) { + u64 fault_address; + u32 error_code; + + fault_address = svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2; + error_code = svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_1; + + kvm_mmu_page_fault(&svm->vcpu, + fault_address, + error_code); + + /* + * If we are still nested here the pending + * irqs/exceptions must be reinjected + */ + //if (is_nested(svm)) + // svm_complete_interrupts(svm); + + return true; + } + break; default: break;
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> --- arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)