From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: X86: Fixup kvm_apic_match_dest() dest_mode parameter
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:31:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191202173152.GB4063@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mucbcchj.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:18:00AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > The problem is the same as the previous patch on that we've got too
> > many ways to define a dest_mode, but logically we should only pass in
> > APIC_DEST_* macros for this helper.
>
> Using 'the previous patch' in changelog is OK until it comes to
> backporting as the order can change. I'd suggest to spell out "KVM: X86:
> Use APIC_DEST_* macros properly" explicitly.
Even that is bad practice IMO. Unless there is an explicit dependency on
a previous patch, which does not seem to be the case here, the changelog
should fully describe and justify the patch without referencing a previous
patch/commit.
Case in point, I haven't looked at the previous patch yet and have no idea
why *this* patch is needed or what it's trying to accomplish.
> >
> > To make it easier, simply define dest_mode of kvm_apic_match_dest() to
> > be a boolean to make it right while we can avoid to touch the callers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 5 +++--
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > index cf9177b4a07f..80732892c709 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > @@ -791,8 +791,9 @@ static u32 kvm_apic_mda(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int dest_id,
> > return dest_id;
> > }
> >
> > +/* Set dest_mode to true for logical mode, false for physical mode */
> > bool kvm_apic_match_dest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_lapic *source,
> > - int short_hand, unsigned int dest, int dest_mode)
> > + int short_hand, unsigned int dest, bool dest_mode)
> > {
> > struct kvm_lapic *target = vcpu->arch.apic;
> > u32 mda = kvm_apic_mda(vcpu, dest, source, target);
> > @@ -800,7 +801,7 @@ bool kvm_apic_match_dest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_lapic *source,
> > ASSERT(target);
> > switch (short_hand) {
> > case APIC_DEST_NOSHORT:
> > - if (dest_mode == APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL)
> > + if (dest_mode == false)
>
> I must admit this seriously harm the readability of the code for
> me. Just look at the
>
> if (dest_mode == false)
>
> line without a context and try to say what's being checked. I can't.
>
> I see to solutions:
> 1) Adhere to the APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL/APIC_DEST_LOGICAL (basically - just
> check against "dest_mode == APIC_DEST_LOGICAL" in the else branch)
> 2) Rename the dest_mode parameter to 'dest_mode_is_phys' or something
> like that.
For #2, it should be "logical" instead of "phys" as APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL is
the zero value.
There's also a third option:
3) Add a WARN_ON_ONCE and fix the IO APIC callers, e.g.:
WARN_ON_ONCE(dest_mode != APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL ||
dest_mode != APIC_DEST_LOGICAL);
if (dest_mode == APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL)
return kvm_apic_match_physical_addr(target, mda);
else
return kvm_apic_match_logical_addr(target, mda);
Part of me likes the simplicity of #2, but on the other hand I don't like
the inconsistency with respect to @short_hand and @dest, which take in
"full" values. E.g. @short_hand would also be problematic for a caller
that uses a bitfield.
Side topic, the I/O APIC callers should explicitly pass APIC_DEST_NOSHORT
instead of 0.
> > return kvm_apic_match_physical_addr(target, mda);
> > else
> > return kvm_apic_match_logical_addr(target, mda);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > index 19b36196e2ff..c0b472ed87ad 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ int kvm_lapic_reg_write(struct kvm_lapic *apic, u32 reg, u32 val);
> > int kvm_lapic_reg_read(struct kvm_lapic *apic, u32 offset, int len,
> > void *data);
> > bool kvm_apic_match_dest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_lapic *source,
> > - int short_hand, unsigned int dest, int dest_mode);
> > + int short_hand, unsigned int dest, bool dest_mode);
> > int kvm_apic_compare_prio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu1, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu2);
> > int kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> > struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq,
>
> --
> Vitaly
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-02 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-29 16:32 [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: X86: Cleanups on dest_mode and headers Peter Xu
2019-11-29 16:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: X86: Some cleanups in ioapic.h/lapic.h Peter Xu
2019-12-02 9:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2019-12-02 17:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-02 19:13 ` Peter Xu
2019-11-29 16:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: X86: Use APIC_DEST_* macros properly Peter Xu
2019-11-29 16:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: X86: Fixup kvm_apic_match_dest() dest_mode parameter Peter Xu
2019-12-02 9:18 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2019-12-02 17:31 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-12-02 18:59 ` Peter Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191202173152.GB4063@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nitesh@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox