On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:07:22PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/09/20 18:36, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +static inline bool pt_output_base_valid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base)
> > +{
> > + /* The base must be 128-byte aligned and a legal physical address. */
> > + return !(base & (~((1UL << cpuid_maxphyaddr(vcpu)) - 1) | 0x7f));
> > +}
>
> The fact that you deemed a comment necessary says something already. :)
> What about:
>
> return !kvm_mmu_is_illegal_gpa(vcpu, base) && !(base & 0x7f);
>
> (where this new usage makes it obvious that mmu should have been vcpu).
Ya. I think it was a sort of sunk cost fallacy. Dammit, I spent all that
time figuring out what this code does, I'm keeping it!!!
v3 incoming...
