On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > It may not be clear what 'msr->availble' means. The test actually > checks that accessing the particular MSR doesn't cause #GP, rename > the varialble accordingly. > > Suggested-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c | 92 +++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c > index 79ab0152d281..4ec4776662a4 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static inline uint8_t hypercall(u64 control, vm_vaddr_t input_address, > > struct msr_data { > uint32_t idx; > - bool available; > + bool should_not_gp; I agree that "available" is a bit inscrutable, but "should_not_gp" is also odd. What about inverting it to? bool gp_expected; or maybe even just bool fault_expected; and letting the assert define which vector is expected.