On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 17:10 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > index 0e64a6332052..dbc3f6ce9203 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > if (!entry) > > continue; > > > > - cpuid_func_emulated(&emulated, cpuid.function); > > + cpuid_func_emulated(&emulated, cpuid.function, false); > > > > /* > > * A vCPU has a feature if it's supported by KVM and is enabled > > @@ -1034,7 +1034,8 @@ static struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *do_host_cpuid(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, > > return entry; > > } > > > > -static int cpuid_func_emulated(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 func) > > +static int cpuid_func_emulated(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 func, > > + bool only_advertised) > > I'll say, lets call this boolean, 'include_partially_emulated', > (basically features that kvm emulates but only partially, > and thus doesn't advertise, aka mwait) > > and then it doesn't look that bad, assuming that comes with a comment. Works for me. I was trying to figure out a way to say "emulated_on_ud", but I can't get the polarity right, at least not without ridiculous verbosity. E.g. include_not_emulated_on_ud is awful.
