Skip to contentSkip to conversation

KVM: Remove redundant check in vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses()

PATCH Applied Gui Jianfeng 3 participants 3 messages Jan 29, 2010 – Feb 1, 2010

Subsystems (3)
x86 KVM KVM x86
lore
Share & tools
lore

Gui Jianfeng

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 KVM: Remove redundant check in vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses()

flexpriority_enabled implies cpu_has_vmx_virtualize_apic_accesses() returning true, so we don't need this check here.

Signed-off-by Gui Jianfeng <[email protected]>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c |    4 +---
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c +1 -3
index 9f56110..0e6af4a 100644
@@ -358,9 +358,7 @@ static inline int cpu_has_vmx_ple(void)
 
 static inline int vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
-	return flexpriority_enabled &&
-		(cpu_has_vmx_virtualize_apic_accesses()) &&
-		(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm));
+	return flexpriority_enabled && irqchip_in_kernel(kvm);
 }
 
 static inline int cpu_has_vmx_vpid(void)
Signature · 1 line
1.5.4.rc3
#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · On Friday 29 January 2010 15:36:59 Gui Jianfeng wrote:

flexpriority_enabled implies cpu_has_vmx_virtualize_apic_accesses()
returning true, so we don't need this check here.

Looks fine to me.

Signature · 2 lines
regards
Yang, Sheng
Quoted 21 lines
Signed-off-by Gui Jianfeng <[email protected]>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c |    4 +---
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c +1 -3
index 9f56110..0e6af4a 100644
@@ -358,9 +358,7 @@ static inline int cpu_has_vmx_ple(void)
 
 static inline int vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
-	return flexpriority_enabled &&
-		(cpu_has_vmx_virtualize_apic_accesses()) &&
-		(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm));
+	return flexpriority_enabled && irqchip_in_kernel(kvm);
 }
 
 static inline int cpu_has_vmx_vpid(void)
Applied
#2 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Sheng Yang
Quoted 3 lines · On Friday 29 January 2010 15:36:59 Gui Jianfeng wrote:

flexpriority_enabled implies cpu_has_vmx_virtualize_apic_accesses()
returning true, so we don't need this check here.

Looks fine to me.

Applied, thanks.