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: 13863858 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 6E247D35E5D for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 02:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t8W7o-0007Bp-F6; Tue, 05 Nov 2024 21:50:28 -0500 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 1t8W7m-0007BQ-O6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2024 21:50:26 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.19]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t8W7l-0003d6-0v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2024 21:50:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1730861425; x=1762397425; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9AuyQrZYSzpVA3FJlyTq2ttbB88VVZZG/V9oVSStOkA=; b=VXlBmCNelqYELmuQJP+qwIjlpWReC5gEPjHxjdTLtqoHvzgsEZC2dkEV 44ypGqEdMY9Fsp+VCo1WFirVunrthLJEX3rZ1mBkIqB8ckWiNndgDX0uv q0CdqCSpsMXeqVRzrd0BfsSQnMcjPHbMlha7CFnmS1NWaAztC/Zq6AuEc Q8EXzI+w0DRI2iYxEd6GIwq5sw/7kJMAQ3o1alifIFTva9sIJ5ArreOQH R64vLRTjj8tjplW2gt6aq42KQDo1UiNCcgkMy6G42vJEm1RYnE3j/psKZ XvL+bbUYtnni0fX0x7WWVWQ0jMvDRGPiLvSTln9DgeKltxW0pnuNAonNW g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: zGzZ8vs4RbW5wvWSAzDBjA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 8NoJAtJ1Q+21EpaeEhwxGw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="30492330" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="30492330" 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.19; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -46 X-Spam_score: -4.7 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.34, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 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) {