From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34A1C19F32 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:22:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tppdE-0004dF-7K; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:21:56 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tppdB-0004bv-Ny for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:21:54 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.16]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tppd7-0005gO-3v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:21:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1741184509; x=1772720509; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=bnMfchWzPl1XtUrU0nbIzpEbDv6J0UZh8/s9tPzJ42w=; b=MUKBbwy+ihZSdxLstl7ooEOIZjPgkoQVg2IiIXOSnWDDAd+FNR+sd3tB lS8iGxHQVdtByu/zcMQryY0X2v7S8HlNHaSwlcjZmicN51FTUdmKZKLoH 3doapH5/IcjH/9+P8BJonkl+na88/gaXT2iJ26Jln/045jvK2ilVYixYI a9EZ5hGKgCLRe8B0H9HwGsHCMipD7y9YPfiDXzfxUpIP17a2dXalu7qyB sp54a1wNaG4AFBvQpdRash0qq5OJtHq8l/LNa3ru0lJlgdtce7ghwtZhM tU1hUzi3k1oN7kJ3ErWUeLPcbM4Sh1i0LEVUEJfrQJtjI2hw4N0cdnBTC g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: vo7lKGNxRUytg4+BbRzLVw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: RCjdDQcpTH2rkK++mV9xDg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11363"; a="42277010" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,223,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="42277010" 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76da2b4a-2dc4-417c-91bc-ad29e08c8ba0@intel.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.16; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > > + 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