From patchwork Wed Nov 6 03:07:28 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Zhao Liu X-Patchwork-Id: 13863877 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB35619046E for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 02:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730861425; cv=none; b=EI4reBCXMWQoLhC6brTGyJYlk1xQLy2eN3pyi/eeDHvDx9D5qKev/TcLx0XfBDWZgFNT9/L5/VcHMbI1bodC7SlJC415QI0leMhkavBInSOG2TuE5/zvBZYTPAYZ+gZOp2kbQT3znY/Bqivf7UKVAq7/lSNuVeFZ6dEV5+4iQfA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730861425; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9AuyQrZYSzpVA3FJlyTq2ttbB88VVZZG/V9oVSStOkA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=gBUvjU4BCAec4SsmWdQ3t3KI6DsH3cN7o9dzrFpTxt7W1JlMkKgMIISs6KB40ddtSnVi/ry1WygIz9x03OkPTIl2kt5FbXPs5gb9PTt/HsPOxD2fdlAW4LrlFpMlCgDlLzZ62V5zijDtKDc4R2smhhIquEYON0+NqRvbuZ7Oyx8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=WC1x4pRt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="WC1x4pRt" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1730861424; x=1762397424; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9AuyQrZYSzpVA3FJlyTq2ttbB88VVZZG/V9oVSStOkA=; b=WC1x4pRtT2wYixV7DepMT15h3fVb9vrsZ8+LF7mBQ++TrdZ8xENXTBj2 wmABVCi/Cik4T7y9GE1BsoLo73tefg1u6oyuVbo6u0BZWVcfOBGmUd7u5 XacwHqbn25vEkclUMaNhK6NLOkk3A/cRC+F16DT1Bs7BA8ciA8G19SQ4l DNMZ1jmij+e/PgxeilHRcRfq2D8bdjhevE357lnG5e8LSmQDUs2acJ83E j9dBWSeufq9jvinVKAFiMQt2CUEs0mS2HORXzxTAUTn93NX32GxfObrXR FO55sWGl35E+iSbZPAhOwUy7XACA+g2ItWRufAs3a4KYPutGsV1Brezxt A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: FxQOSwM0SgC8CtLvBDICmQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: FDNMdexlTn6DSgtI3567WA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="30492328" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="30492328" Received: from fmviesa001.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.141]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2024 18:50:24 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Xc1MDl7tSfCEEqJ32ZjcVg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: k7B4qdF5SEW5pn0ojYmSlg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,261,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="115078037" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com ([10.239.160.36]) by fmviesa001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2024 18:50:20 -0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Marcelo Tosatti , Tao Su Cc: Xiaoyao Li , Pankaj Gupta , Zide Chen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Zhao Liu Subject: [PATCH v5 11/11] target/i386/kvm: Replace ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers) with KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:07:28 +0800 Message-Id: <20241106030728.553238-12-zhao1.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20241106030728.553238-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> References: <20241106030728.553238-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 kvm_install_msr_filters() uses KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES as the bound when traversing msr_handlers[], while other places still compute the size by ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers). In fact, msr_handlers[] is an array with the fixed size KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES, so there is no difference between the two ways. For the code consistency and to avoid additional computational overhead, use KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES instead of ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers). Suggested-by: Zide Chen Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu Reviewed-by: Zide Chen --- v4: new commit. --- target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c index 013c0359acbe..501873475255 100644 --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c @@ -5885,7 +5885,7 @@ static int kvm_filter_msr(KVMState *s, uint32_t msr, QEMURDMSRHandler *rdmsr, { int i, ret; - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) { + for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) { if (!msr_handlers[i].msr) { msr_handlers[i] = (KVMMSRHandlers) { .msr = msr, @@ -5911,7 +5911,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_rdmsr(X86CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run) int i; bool r; - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) { + for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) { KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i]; if (run->msr.index == handler->msr) { if (handler->rdmsr) { @@ -5931,7 +5931,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_wrmsr(X86CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run) int i; bool r; - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) { + for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) { KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i]; if (run->msr.index == handler->msr) { if (handler->wrmsr) {