[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUT9X9GbDbkHRhd5@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 07:02:07 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, chao.gao@...el.com,
        rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, john.allen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 14/25] KVM: x86: Load guest FPU state when access
 XSAVE-managed MSRs
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023, Weijiang Yang wrote:
> On 11/2/2023 2:05 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > /*
> >   * Returns true if the MSR in question is managed via XSTATE, i.e. is context
> >   * switched with the rest of guest FPU state.
> >   */
> > static bool is_xstate_managed_msr(u32 index)
> 
> How about is_xfeature_msr()? xfeature is XSAVE-Supported-Feature, just to align with SDM
> convention.
My vote remains for is_xstate_managed_msr().  is_xfeature_msr() could also refer
to MSRs that control XSTATE features, e.g. XSS.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
