Re: [PATCH 7/9] x86: Merge xc_cpu_policy's cpuid and msr objects

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/03/2023 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.03.2023 22:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>  /* Sanity test various invariants we expect in the default/max policies. */
>>  static void test_guest_policies(const struct xc_cpu_policy *max,
>>                                  const struct xc_cpu_policy *def)
>>  {
>> -    const struct cpuid_policy *cm = &max->cpuid;
>> -    const struct cpuid_policy *cd = &def->cpuid;
>> -    const struct msr_policy *mm = &max->msr;
>> -    const struct msr_policy *md = &def->msr;
>> +    const struct cpu_policy *m = &max->policy;
>> +    const struct cpu_policy *d = &def->policy;
> Looks like you could reduce code churn by keeping "cm" and "cd" as the
> names, which would also be consistent with you continuing to use "cp"
> in hypervisor code.

It's a unit test - I'm not worried about churn; I'm more concerned about
the end readability.

I did consider swapping {d,m} with {max,def} so the logic below reads:

    if ( ((max->feat.raw[0].d | def->feat.raw[0].d) &

but it occurs to me that because the policies are now merged, I can get
rid of all of the xc_cpu_policy passing and use cpu_policy instead. 
(For inspection purposes, we don't care about the serialisation buffers
on the tail of xc_cpu_policy).

It will be a slightly larger change, but the end result will be better IMO.

~Andrew