From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/20] vmx: Merge MSR management routines
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:28:11 -0400
Message-ID: <540DE72B.50705@oracle.com>
References: <1409802080-6160-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<1409802080-6160-7-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<540DF06E02000078000322DF@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <540DF06E02000078000322DF@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com>
Cc: tim@xen.org, kevin.tian@intel.com, keir@xen.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/08/2014 12:07 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.09.14 at 05:41, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> vmx_add_host_load_msr() and vmx_add_guest_msr() share fair amount of code.
>> Merge
>> them to simplify code maintenance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>> Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> Considering the re-work, is this really valid?

Probably not (although the difference between this and earlier version 
is removal of one of the two routines).

This also brings up another question --- I have kept Dietmar's Tested-by 
tags for a while now and I believe he tested this quite a few revisions 
back. I am not sure whether the tags are valid any longer. I would like 
to keep them since it was very helpful work on his part but I don't know 
what the policy is.

(And I noticed that I accidentally dropped him from recipients list)

>> -int vmx_add_guest_msr(u32 msr)
>> +int vmx_add_msr(u32 msr, u8 type)
> Why u8?

No reason. I'll change it to int.

>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -2263,12 +2263,12 @@ static int vmx_msr_write_intercept(unsigned int msr, uint64_t msr_content)
>>   
>>               for ( ; (rc == 0) && lbr->count; lbr++ )
>>                   for ( i = 0; (rc == 0) && (i < lbr->count); i++ )
>> -                    if ( (rc = vmx_add_guest_msr(lbr->base + i)) == 0 )
>> +                    if ( (rc = vmx_add_msr(lbr->base + i, VMX_GUEST_MSR)) == 0 )
> Perhaps better keep the old functions as inline wrappers?

Yes.

-boris