Re: [PATCH 4/6] KVM: SVM: Switch svm_copy_lbrs() to a macro

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 08:59:18AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 11/8/25 01:45, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > In preparation for using svm_copy_lbrs() with 'struct vmcb_save_area'
> > > without a containing 'struct vmcb', and later even 'struct
> > > vmcb_save_area_cached', make it a macro. Pull the call to
> > > vmcb_mark_dirty() out to the callers.
> > 
> > The changes to use `struct vmcb_save_area_cached' are not included in this
> > series, so they are irrelevant.
> > 
> > Since I've applied patches 1-3, which fix the worst bugs, there are two ways
> > to handle the rest:
> > 
> > * keep the function instead of the macro, while making it take a struct
> > vmcb_save_area (and therefore pulling vmcb_mark_dirty() to the callers and
> > fixing the bug you mention below).
> > 
> > * you resubmit with the changes to use struct vmcb_save_area_cached, so that
> > the commit message makes more sense.
> 
> I can include patches 4-6 with the respin of the series [1] that has the
> changes to use `struct vmcb_save_area_cached`. That series origianlly
> had the patch to switch svm_copy_lbrs() to a macro, but I moved it here
> to use for the save/restore patch. I was planning to rebase [1] on top
> of this series anyway.
> 
> There is a hiccup though, I assumed everything would go through Sean's
> tree so I planned to respin [1] on top of this series. Otherwise, they
> will conflict. With the first 3 patches in your tree, I am not sure how
> that would work.
> 
> I can respin [1] on top of Sean's kvm-x86/next or kvm-x86/svm, but it
> will conflict with the patches you picked up eventually, and I already
> have them locally on top of the LBR fixes so it seems like wasted
> effort.
> 
> Sean, Paolo, how do you want to handle this?

Base your patches on kvm/master, assuming there's nothing in kvm-x86/svm that
you need.  I can create a one-off branch, e.g. kvm-x86/lbrv, based on kvm/master
or 6.18-rc6.