[PATCH v4 9/9] target/i386/kvm: Replace ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers) with KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES

[Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>]

kvm_install_msr_filters() uses KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES as the bound
when traversing msr_handlers[], while other places still compute the
size by ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers).

In fact, msr_handlers[] is an array with the fixed size
KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES, so there is no difference between the two
ways.

For the code consistency and to avoid additional computational overhead,
use KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES instead of ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers).

Suggested-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
---
v4: new commit.
---
 target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
index d47476e96813..43b2ea63d584 100644
--- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
+++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
@@ -5314,7 +5314,7 @@ int kvm_filter_msr(KVMState *s, uint32_t msr, QEMURDMSRHandler *rdmsr,
 {
     int i, ret;
 
-    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) {
+    for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) {
         if (!msr_handlers[i].msr) {
             msr_handlers[i] = (KVMMSRHandlers) {
                 .msr = msr,
@@ -5340,7 +5340,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_rdmsr(X86CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     int i;
     bool r;
 
-    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) {
+    for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) {
         KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i];
         if (run->msr.index == handler->msr) {
             if (handler->rdmsr) {
@@ -5360,7 +5360,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_wrmsr(X86CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     int i;
     bool r;
 
-    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers); i++) {
+    for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) {
         KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i];
         if (run->msr.index == handler->msr) {
             if (handler->wrmsr) {
-- 
2.34.1