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.
