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

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/03/2023 1:06 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.03.2023 14:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 30/03/2023 11:16 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> --- 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.
> Hmm, wait - CPUID "basic" and "feat" and alike uses I still would prefer
> to see using "cpuid". It's really only such initializers which (imo
> even logically) want to use the name with the wider coverage.

So its the other way around and you're saying you don't want the field
name to change, and you don't want to see

-#define vcpu_has_fpu()         (ctxt->cpuid->basic.fpu)
+#define vcpu_has_fpu()         (ctxt->cpu_policy->basic.fpu)

in the resulting diff ?

~Andrew