Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: SVM: Update "APICv in x2APIC without x2AVIC" in avic.c, not svm.c

[Chao Gao]

>Question then.  Does anyone have a preference/opinion between explicitly passing
>in ops to vendor specific helpers, vs. making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible?
>
>I don't love creating "hidden" dependencies, in quotes because in this case it's
>relatively easy to establish that the setup() helpers modify {svm,vt}_x86_ops,
>i.e. surprises should be rare.
>
>On the other hand, I do agree it's helpful to be able to see exactly where
>{svm,vt}_x86_ops are updated.

I think passing in ops to vendor-specific helpers looks a bit indirect as the
parameter should always be svm_x86_ops for AMD or vt_x86_ops for Intel.

I slightly prefer making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible.

>
>And most importantly, I want to be consistent between VMX and SVM, i.e. I want
>to pick one and stick with it.