From patchwork Tue Jul 16 16:10:15 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Zhao Liu X-Patchwork-Id: 13734667 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA0FC3DA59 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sTkWj-0000Ys-2K; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:55:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sTkWc-0000BN-Bx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:55:36 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.15]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sTkWY-0007Rv-QX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:55:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1721145331; x=1752681331; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tdtgldsaF/+mVcySq07MM+0QKRZwCNCIky3jLeqq+yU=; b=SeTwgmpYcoodVYpWXmOAxIruboZfcLU5//XaJgJgD2yEc9nwOglL/nOy 13KufpFd1w8F2Nrk7xXW09rpQ6UW/5Kb/slLgJJtI4i1vQhOLtH6Cse1x nMtEgzC2PkINZTk13b+EifHVn3UVEmN62e9xdEn33rapScC8s1jjuaI/j ZZN//3fNYGruDW6AFWeRZVkiXdkWK+N8OjB9d3MyOTytBf2U2t1APrcWx 8HH8D9rXX4pbGJTTY4f+YUEm1Vm5OZXxMO6sagKlROzOv8h3qsUt9R2Md hm9bRqZtGonxFoN/okMPETusy3x25RewRsuXV0DvogIAfN+vD/RucwTYr g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7VyvnZhyQ8ai5W6V9P3n1w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: X4SPtY1DRvam0eZ2WYhleA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11135"; a="18743847" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,212,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="18743847" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by fmvoesa109.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jul 2024 08:55:22 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: VMJ6NDNcQHG83f2ZFWlZ7Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6r8tifxbTPWlPASAB/PxKg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,212,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="50788551" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com ([10.239.160.36]) by orviesa008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2024 08:55:10 -0700 From: Zhao Liu To: Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Xiaoyao Li , Pankaj Gupta , Zide Chen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Zhao Liu Subject: [PATCH v4 9/9] target/i386/kvm: Replace ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers) with KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:10:15 +0800 Message-Id: <20240716161015.263031-10-zhao1.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20240716161015.263031-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> References: <20240716161015.263031-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.15; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org 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 d47476e96813..43b2ea63d584 100644 --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c @@ -5314,7 +5314,7 @@ 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, @@ -5340,7 +5340,7 @@ 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) { @@ -5360,7 +5360,7 @@ 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) {