From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D090724EAB3 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:21:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741184506; cv=none; b=LZNaVPXym1i92rm/kBOx9BjuOaZzPoHXdB0YzM1ceBdP+NPbaqxiSG8LOMz9bIEpdPKk1NDqjDxME51w94diUB2E7JC8Musml78o7ojV8s8vJJsS9iI5HZhkn1RhkF7TWwbhgt5TKlmQLn9AoWrOyK3HSaP49bdVQ0N3GTeNT4s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741184506; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bnMfchWzPl1XtUrU0nbIzpEbDv6J0UZh8/s9tPzJ42w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FQQI6JqDdZtAHYJcN/+fha3HpUg/ehBuDd5PIgAamRAkS2cjCV+KP84zp5eVPr2G9kcvB3hJIT+qUxpWVbTixBtD4l48HWeMEyAdkjyiNTG9DfdFZrAPvZiD7fynz4mXCG3TD+uhAf2zx3C9oCpZ1d7cekC3GxJvtd8rHZ0dyV4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=BXhOeUp0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="BXhOeUp0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1741184505; x=1772720505; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=bnMfchWzPl1XtUrU0nbIzpEbDv6J0UZh8/s9tPzJ42w=; b=BXhOeUp0yRksht3u+UsSLuJXBBpKjOMD7n6HB+A/MWAkLd6OL3GhRT4X tQupWtjFNOnqXKcts4XHMphKx36e/b0HgV92B63fzGXgW87mghqEv1Dko 5csMV83/iojn6E4D8pVMlsJtytW3FOynUBjePMsGOo0kiXqiCYdGCKVWr +I/DMhECjJjC1wBjeNiJg8cQuzmFSM/Xc0llhFoiycmJrtMAHR7kMIOLB afU28OPSHRNdZ98gRcBX5+GgYP6kpUSIK5ndQ7XxN8GOyanYTmm6nS1Mi 1zqxrCrhKe/SyUCTdYbzi2r0wtU7Z7VrOYaYX/AHDd3+UVuGBWs8A1EBG Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 3+DdYLX4SROl6zilkBaMFQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: JigxCbw6RiymqHLou2Eq5Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11363"; a="42277008" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,223,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="42277008" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2025 06:21:44 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: efI84FRRROWbVW0d+MOEfA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: NvbSPA3CQ7mmchWuqvw1/w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="118623962" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by orviesa010.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2025 06:21:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:41:47 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Xiaoyao Li Cc: Dongli Zhang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, sandipan.das@amd.com, babu.moger@amd.com, likexu@tencent.com, like.xu.linux@gmail.com, zhenyuw@linux.intel.com, groug@kaod.org, khorenko@virtuozzo.com, alexander.ivanov@virtuozzo.com, den@virtuozzo.com, davydov-max@yandex-team.ru, dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com, joe.jin@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] target/i386/kvm: set KVM_PMU_CAP_DISABLE if "-pmu" is configured Message-ID: References: <20250302220112.17653-1-dongli.zhang@oracle.com> <20250302220112.17653-5-dongli.zhang@oracle.com> <76da2b4a-2dc4-417c-91bc-ad29e08c8ba0@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76da2b4a-2dc4-417c-91bc-ad29e08c8ba0@intel.com> > > + if (has_pmu_cap && !X86_CPU(cpu)->enable_pmu) { > > One nit, it's safer to use > > (has_pmu_cap & KVM_PMU_CAP_DISABLE) && !X86_CPU(cpu)->enable_pmu > > Maybe we can rename has_pmu_cap to pmu_cap as well. Yes, I agree. Regards, Zhao