Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] libs/guest: allow fetching a specific MSR entry from a cpu policy

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 04.05.2021 12:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:41:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.04.2021 17:52, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
>>> +++ b/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
>>> @@ -850,3 +850,45 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_get_cpuid(xc_interface *xch, const 
>>> xc_cpu_policy_t policy,
>>>      *out = *tmp;
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +static int compare_entries(const void *l, const void *r)
>>> +{
>>> +    const xen_msr_entry_t *lhs = l;
>>> +    const xen_msr_entry_t *rhs = r;
>>> +
>>> +    if ( lhs->idx == rhs->idx )
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    return lhs->idx < rhs->idx ? -1 : 1;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static xen_msr_entry_t *find_entry(xen_msr_entry_t *entries,
>>> +                                   unsigned int nr_entries, unsigned int 
>>> index)
>>> +{
>>> +    const xen_msr_entry_t key = { index };
>>> +
>>> +    return bsearch(&key, entries, nr_entries, sizeof(*entries), 
>>> compare_entries);
>>> +}
>>
>> Isn't "entries" / "entry" a little too generic a name here, considering
>> the CPUID equivalents use "leaves" / "leaf"? (Noticed really while looking
>> at patch 7.)
> 
> Would you be fine with naming the function find_msr and leaving the
> rest of the parameters names as-is?

Yes. But recall I'm not the maintainer of this code anyway.

Jan