Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: selftests: Rename 'msr->availble' to
 'msr->should_not_gp' in hyperv_features test
In-Reply-To: <Yx87WXMXGzLxrT0f@google.com>
References: <20220831085009.1627523-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20220831085009.1627523-3-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <Yx87WXMXGzLxrT0f@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:52:54 +0200
Message-ID: <874jxbr47d.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:

> 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@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  .../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.
>

I think Max suggested it to reduce the code churn and I silently agreed.

> What about inverting it to?
>
> 	bool gp_expected;
>
> or maybe even just
>
> 	bool fault_expected;
>
> and letting the assert define which vector is expected.
>

This also works, will change.

-- 
Vitaly