On 6/5/23 17:19, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> OK, so xa_store() aside[*], I see some bool-to-bools: >> >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c: >> kvm_msr_allowed():allowed = !!test_bit(index - start, bitmap); >> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c: >> kvm_hv_hypercall():hc.rep = !!(hc.rep_cnt || hc.rep_idx); >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c: >> update_pkru_bitmask(): >> pkey_bits = !!check_pkey; >> pkey_bits |= (!!check_write) << 1; >> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c: >> msr_write_intercepted():return !!test_bit(bit_write, &tmp); >> svm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid(): >> 2x set_msr_interception... >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_exception_with_invalid_guest_state.c: >> set_or_clear_invalid_guest_state():sregs.tr.unusable = !!set; >> >> But perhaps this is a matter of style and those were meant to be this kind-of >> explicit? > > I doubt it, I'm guessing most cases are due to the author being overzealous for > one reason or another, e.g. I suspect the test_bit() ones are due to the original > author incorrectly assuming test_bit() returned an unsigned long, i.e. the bit, > as opposed to the bool. > > If you want to clean these up, I'd say "fix" the test_bit() cases, but leave the > others alone. The test_bit() ones are clearly redundant, and IMO can be actively > due to implying test_bit() returns something other than a bool. Done: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230605200158.118109-1-mhal@xxxxxxx/
