[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZNpiaGsEnoOxAspP@google.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:20:40 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/21] KVM: x86: Add a framework for enabling
KVM-governed x86 features
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, Zeng Guang wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2023 9:15 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +static __always_inline int kvm_governed_feature_index(unsigned int x86_feature)
> > +{
> > + switch (x86_feature) {
> > +#define KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE(x) case x: return KVM_GOVERNED_##x;
> > +#include "governed_features.h"
> > + default:
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __always_inline int kvm_is_governed_feature(unsigned int x86_feature)
> > +{
> > + return kvm_governed_feature_index(x86_feature) >= 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> I think it proper to return a bool, not "int" instead.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure someone brought this up in v1 too, and I spaced on it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists