From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-172.mta1.migadu.com (out-172.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.172]) (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 27F5441A81 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708027989; cv=none; b=vFbtEP4RqIsZTzpotBbfdzeSmc4gjvcrQVcPfQxfuCICoD9H4Uy/AvMY9/DLHygiQIB0LlcUy2tqPzAkfTMnydQlYj7Ij/5vXMxladH4hcZZ2bw0Ve3xiJN4zsfIqvRpBTQVYF8pEMeDiuOdqjSmvhW8fzCaefGjnldKs6Tp55Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708027989; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qOqvElTaarBcrxNDQK0w6KO5cXuq7tPFNungF5/n584=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GvCoBBBOk842rW6CwigIlxnzwZM6iiwE2NF6DRahPwOCUBUdw1TOfpCrrwoI0g6t3RrREvJCGyBrsNPz5+/XU7ztX7JSCxWh3u00YWFBFstYre+6mCyfMH8O7cP2218szfpkTnDiOE/aD8TIqZbPlMMcHt9pMCFSyGVpgD5G6BQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=l0gOqppm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="l0gOqppm" Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:13:00 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1708027985; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gKIub81Sc4Nl7uCdniCI0jeJfd0LuO+w541ahUUiUW4=; b=l0gOqppm1Q6KVADGlmEX/Qv2lrl2UtknDOpK8InCI9cnIPEVogV/zsySi6pGfUM6W71ZCQ izbiieMZAhkmttwc4s6yZju8UGSEbkW7dAeOfDdt2lb9m7e9QgHkZW08JeoV5HYKX0hMMh KnmJrgqQgGxD4R4SvUTJ5H8PQq/CEAU= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack , Pasha Tatashin , Michael Krebs Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: selftests: Test forced instruction emulation in dirty log test (x86 only) Message-ID: References: <20240215010004.1456078-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240215010004.1456078-3-seanjc@google.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: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:50:20AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Yeah, the funky flow I concocted was done purely to have the "no emulation" path > fall through to the common "*mem = val". I don't have a strong preference, I > mentally flipped a coin on doing that versus what you suggested, and apparently > chose poorly :-) Oh, I could definitely tell this was intentional :) But really if folks are going to add more flavors of emulated instructions to the x86 implementation (which they should) then it might make sense to just have an x86-specific function. But again, it's selftests, who cares! /s -- Thanks, Oliver