On 1/2/25 03:30, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > On 1/2/2025 2:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 10:33:26AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > >> As in: I will handle the TSC MSRs for STSC guests and the other flow for >> non-STSC guests should remain. For now. >> >> And make that goddamn explicit. >> >> One possible way to do that is this: > > I agree, if renaming helps to make it explicit, this is perfect. Thanks. > >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c >> index 6235286a0eda..61100532c259 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c >> @@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static enum es_result __vc_handle_msr_caa(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write) >> * Reads: Reads of MSR_IA32_TSC should return the current TSC >> * value, use the value returned by RDTSC. >> */ >> -static enum es_result __vc_handle_msr_tsc(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write) >> +static enum es_result __vc_handle_secure_tsc_msrs(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write) >> { >> u64 tsc; >> >> @@ -1477,7 +1477,9 @@ static enum es_result vc_handle_msr(struct ghcb *ghcb, struct es_em_ctxt *ctxt) >> case MSR_IA32_TSC: >> case MSR_AMD64_GUEST_TSC_FREQ: >> if (sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SNP_SECURE_TSC) >> - return __vc_handle_msr_tsc(regs, write); >> + return __vc_handle_secure_tsc_msrs(regs, write); >> + else >> + break; There's a return as part of the if, so no reason for the else. Just put the break in the normal place and it reads much clearer. Thanks, Tom >> default: >> break; >> } >> --- > > Regards, > Nikunj