| Message ID | 20250108151946.1379591-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | target/i386/kvm: Replace KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES with ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers) | expand |
diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c index 2f66e63b880a..7424a3f5cf48 100644 --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c @@ -5851,7 +5851,7 @@ static bool kvm_install_msr_filters(KVMState *s) }; int r, i, j = 0; - for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) { KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i]; if (handler->msr) { struct kvm_msr_filter_range *range = &filter.ranges[j++];
kvm_install_msr_filters() uses KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES as the bound when traversing msr_handlers[], while other places 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, use ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers) uniformly instead of KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES. Suggested-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com> --- Changelog: * Addressed Paolo's comment [1] to choose ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers). [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/5463356b-827f-4c9f-a76e-02cd580fe885@redhat.com/ --- target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)