Re: [PATCH v3 08/21] KVM: selftests: Rename TSC freq checkers in nested TSC scaling test

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_tsc_scaling_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> > index 84312146e93f6..e5fc4c9bb9f9b 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void compare_tsc_freq(u64 actual, u64 expected)
> >  		    actual, thresh_low, thresh_high);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void check_tsc_freq(int level)
> > +static void guest_check_tsc_freq(int level)
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> The commit message states the goal is to make it more obvious that the host
> version *checks* the result and asserts on errors. However, renaming the
> guest helper to guest_check_tsc_freq implies it also performs validation,
> whereas it merely measures the frequency and invokes GUEST_CHECK() to pass
> the value back to the host for verification.
> 
> Would a name like guest_measure_tsc_freq be more semantically accurate
> given the commit's stated intent?

No, because hopefully humans will understand that even though the check is
ultimately performed by the host, guest_check_tsc_freq() really does check the
guest's observed frequency.