Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:22:22 +0200
From:   Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/kvm: Implement MSR_HWCR support
Message-ID: <20180622192222.GA12641@flask>
References: <20180622095101.32587-1-bp@alien8.de>
 <20180622095101.32587-3-bp@alien8.de>
 <20180622185237.GC5549@flask>
 <20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-06-22 21:09+0200, Borislav Petkov:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:52:38PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > msr_info->host_initiated is always going to return true, so it would be
> > better to put it outside of __set_mci_status.
> > 
> > Maybe we could just write the whole logic inline, otherwise I'd call it
> > something like mci_status_is_writeable.
> > 
> > >  static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > >  {
> > >  	u64 mcg_cap = vcpu->arch.mcg_cap;
> > > @@ -2176,9 +2200,13 @@ static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > >  			if ((offset & 0x3) == 0 &&
> > >  			    data != 0 && (data | (1 << 10)) != ~(u64)0)
> > >  				return -1;
> > > -			if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > > -				(offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0)
> > > -				return -1;
> > > +
> > > +			/* MCi_STATUS */
> > > +			if ((offset & 0x3) == 1) {
> > > +				if (!__set_mci_status(vcpu, msr_info))
> > > +					return -1;
> > > +			}
> > 
> > 			if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > 			    (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0) {
> > 				struct msr_data tmp = {.index = MSR_K7_HWCR};
> > 
> > 				if (!guest_cpuid_is_amd(vcpu) ||
> > 				    !kvm_x86_ops->get_msr(vcpu, &tmp) ||
> > 				    !(tmp.data & BIT_ULL(18)))
> > 					return -1;
> 
> Don't you feel it is cleaner if all the MCi_STATUS checking is done in
> a separate function? The indentation level and the bunch of checks in
> set_msr_mce() make it hard to read while having a separate function
> separates it and makes it easier to follow.

Yes, I feel the same.

> I mean, you're the maintainer but if I may give a suggestion, moving the
> whole logic into a separate function would be more readable.
> 
> And then do:
> 
> 	if (!msr_info->host_initiated) {
> 		if (check_mci_status(...))
> 			return -1;
> 	}
> 
> Something like that...

Much better, thanks.