Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: SVM: Optimize nested svm msrpm merging

[Avi Kivity]

On 02/26/2010 03:04 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > I'm still not convinced on this way of doing things. If it's static,
> > make it static. If it's dynamic, make it dynamic. Dynamically
> > generating a static list just sounds plain wrong to me.
> >      
> Stop. I had a static list in the first version of the patch. This list
> was fine except the fact that a developer needs to remember to update
> this list if the list of non-intercepted msrs is expanded. The whole
> reason for a dynamically built list is to take the task of maintaining
> the list away from the developer and remove a possible source of hard to
> find bugs. This is what the current approach does.
>    

The problem was the two lists.  If you had a

static struct svm_direct_access_msrs = {
    u32 index;
    bool longmode_only;
} direct_access_msrs = {
   ...
};

You could generate

static unsigned *msrpm_offsets_longmode, *msrpm_offsets_legacy;

as well as the original bitmaps at module init, no?

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/