Re: [PATCH 9/9] RFC: Everything else

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/03/2023 11:16 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.

If we were to do this, we ought to keep d->arch.msr too for the same reason.

(Honestly - I'm still undecided on whether this is a good idea or not...)

>  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 = &regs;
>>      ctxt.force_writeback = 0;
>> -    ctxt.cpuid     = &cp;
>> +    ctxt.cpu_policy = &cp;
> ... this imo want keeping as you have it here.

Ok, so that's a firm "switch to using cpu_policy for emul_ctxt" then.

Which is fine - in fact it's one I'd already started splitting out of
this patch.

~Andrew