On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/06/21 19:57, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +static inline bool is_##reg##_##name(struct kvm_mmu *mmu) \
>
> What do you think about calling these is_mmu_##name? The point of having
> these helpers is that the register doesn't count, and they return the
> effective value (e.g. false in most EPT cases).
I strongly prefer to keep <reg> in the name, both to match the mmu_role bits and
to make it a bit more clear that it's reflective (modified) register state, as
opposed to PTEs or even something else entirely. E.g. I always struggled to
remember the purpose of mmu->nx flag.
I wouldn't be opposed to is_mmu_##reg##_##name() though. I omitted the "mmu"
part because it was loosely implied by the "struct kvm_mmu" param, and to keep
line lengths short. But being explicit is usually a good thing, and looking at
the code I don't see any lines that would wrap if "mmu" were added.
> > +{ \
> > + return !!(mmu->mmu_role. base_or_ext . reg##_##name); \
> > +}
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr0, pg);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(base, cr0, wp);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, pse);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, pae);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, smep);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, smap);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, pke);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(ext, cr4, la57);
> > +BUILD_MMU_ROLE_ACCESSOR(base, efer, nx);
> > +
> > struct kvm_mmu_role_regs vcpu_to_role_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
