Hi Zide,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 03:18:07PM -0700, Chen, Zide wrote:
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:18:07 -0700
> From: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] target/i386/kvm: Clean up return values of MSR
> filter related functions
>
> On 7/14/2024 9:49 PM, Zhao Liu wrote:
> > @@ -5274,13 +5272,13 @@ void kvm_arch_update_guest_debug(CPUState *cpu, struct kvm_guest_debug *dbg)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static bool kvm_install_msr_filters(KVMState *s)
> > +static int kvm_install_msr_filters(KVMState *s)
> > {
> > uint64_t zero = 0;
> > struct kvm_msr_filter filter = {
> > .flags = KVM_MSR_FILTER_DEFAULT_ALLOW,
> > };
> > - int r, i, j = 0;
> > + int ret, i, j = 0;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES; i++) {
>
> Nit: Since it's a clean up patch, how about replace
> KVM_MSR_FILTER_MAX_RANGES with ARRAY_SIZE(msr_handlers), to make the
> code consistent in other places to refer to the array size of
> msr_handlers[].
Yes, that's fine, I'll add a new small trivial patch to clean up this.
> > KVMMSRHandlers *handler = &msr_handlers[i];
> > @@ -5304,18 +5302,18 @@ static bool kvm_install_msr_filters(KVMState *s)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - r = kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_X86_SET_MSR_FILTER, &filter);
> > - if (r) {
> > - return false;
> > + ret = kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_X86_SET_MSR_FILTER, &filter);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - return true;
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> Nit: Seems ret is not needed here, and can directly return kvm_vm_ioctl();
Yes, good catch!
Thanks for you review!
Zhao
