[PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:34:10PM +0000,
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000,
> > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index f223c845ed6e..c99222b71fcc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_nested_ops {
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  struct kvm_x86_init_ops {
> > > > -	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(void);
> > > > +	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(int cpu);
> > > 
> > > Is this cpu argument used only for error message to include cpu number
> > > with avoiding repeating raw_smp_processor_id() in pr_err()?
> > 
> > Yep.
> > 
> > > The actual check is done on the current executing cpu.
> > > 
> > > If cpu != raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu is wrong. Although the function is called
> > > in non-preemptive context, it's a bit confusing. So voting to remove it and
> > > to use.
> > 
> > What if I rename the param is this_cpu?  I 100% agree the argument is confusing
> > as-is, but forcing all the helpers to manually grab the cpu is quite annoying.
> 
> Makes sense. Let's settle it with this_cpu.

Finally got to actually change the code, and am not a fan of passing "this_cpu"
everywhere.  It's not terrible, but it's not clearly better than just grabbing
the CPU on-demand.  And while manually grabbing the CPU in the helpers is annoying,
in at least two cases the pain is just shifted to the caller.

I'm going with your original suggestion of just grabbing raw_smp_processor_id()
in the helpers that print the error message.