[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80f7f3dc-285f-39c3-655e-fd4a499f81a1@rbox.co>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 22:42:59 +0200
From: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: dmatlack@...gle.com, mizhang@...gle.com, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: allow KVM_BUG/KVM_BUG_ON to handle 64-bit cond
On 6/5/23 17:19, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> OK, so xa_store() aside[*], I see some bool-to-bools:
>>
>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:
>> kvm_msr_allowed():allowed = !!test_bit(index - start, bitmap);
>> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c:
>> kvm_hv_hypercall():hc.rep = !!(hc.rep_cnt || hc.rep_idx);
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c:
>> update_pkru_bitmask():
>> pkey_bits = !!check_pkey;
>> pkey_bits |= (!!check_write) << 1;
>> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c:
>> msr_write_intercepted():return !!test_bit(bit_write, &tmp);
>> svm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid():
>> 2x set_msr_interception...
>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_exception_with_invalid_guest_state.c:
>> set_or_clear_invalid_guest_state():sregs.tr.unusable = !!set;
>>
>> But perhaps this is a matter of style and those were meant to be this kind-of
>> explicit?
>
> I doubt it, I'm guessing most cases are due to the author being overzealous for
> one reason or another, e.g. I suspect the test_bit() ones are due to the original
> author incorrectly assuming test_bit() returned an unsigned long, i.e. the bit,
> as opposed to the bool.
>
> If you want to clean these up, I'd say "fix" the test_bit() cases, but leave the
> others alone. The test_bit() ones are clearly redundant, and IMO can be actively
> due to implying test_bit() returns something other than a bool.
Done: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230605200158.118109-1-mhal@rbox.co/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists