[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RFC: Everything else
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:16:54 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=+zWseryIFQAlxrPEZBp2/4HxlhUyvLyYCchfUj/zf6A=; b=C4ROk2d9FMHZ/iqI+hg5CnPKULazJ9gpJqrJAMSgHMlBQ2R46BY4BENr+5WFzwYpPMPhjuUzYB8OFqr7ZUO13UdX6Mm6SSDWn7xYs2IIvX+Stn+czIADC4UFI0pPWmgbhUVSozCSA9gHzgxXgD33ieQZchfcXezCbpeXazpMIzMb/KTj3IQO+n21tmhfGo1A/th63/ECMEevdXL62mrJcc5o0RLkaUZQf3Z5KaRpDBJykVWOTDvejx9MX8bQZjTEo4AoBdO5bsFTJSM13Qbs0ZdPJqzBkylH6vq7k5tRTa0TsPmv2HkZl75KfmscZQqAro0s5FV5YEZwEEPEsb9Zsw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OUqlJnxE8e9UaXBhtUcxUd3ZXlqMfAdzdtBjm3xlYQ7lEg6qwmFP6ESXrnt70qVkF21viPq+jLRQMhBkxWsw8gh/fFqQr1FjhhtwVC9XyPayJ+GZ7mRS6sJArp29yfVywSIpxXYft+SBPgRy3esV6J5RcK43NQ8Q86er2KNMrbWVAIoypUOvJJzI+d44Io+ZMsGnyrOR5spJv/H8k56WJYrAVMp3kpVcRavQLd1QqNrEbayPDtTJayRzuzaUGSekMR+aNwUpqN39MVYnx760/lVuthrgL+uNPT9WQiyc8a3+KiYYz4lrUoDJhqm/ke1YAFiMh8q1jWz9FzJi03e7Qw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:17:16 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 29.03.2023 22:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Looking at this diff, I'm wondering whether keeping
>
> union {
> struct cpu_policy *cpuid;
> struct cpu_policy *cpu_policy;
> };
>
> permentantly might be a good idea, because d->arch.cpuid->$X reads rather
> better than d->arch.cpu_policy->$X
>
> Thoughts?
I'm not overly fussed, but perhaps yes. Nevertheless e.g. ...
> --- a/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
> +++ b/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
> @@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ int LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(const uint8_t *data_p, size_t
> size)
> struct x86_emulate_ctxt ctxt = {
> .data = &state,
> .regs = &input.regs,
> - .cpuid = &cp,
> + .cpu_policy = &cp,
... this and ...
> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
> @@ -909,7 +909,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>
> ctxt.regs = ®s;
> ctxt.force_writeback = 0;
> - ctxt.cpuid = &cp;
> + ctxt.cpu_policy = &cp;
... this imo want keeping as you have it here.
Jan
|
