MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230301133841.18007-1-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <CALzav=eRYpnfg7bVQpVawAMraFdHu3OzqWr55Pg1SJC_Uh8t=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <DS0PR11MB637348F1351260F8B7E97A15DCB29@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZAAsIBUuIIO1prZT@google.com> <DS0PR11MB6373DAA05CEF9AB8A83A6499DCB29@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DS0PR11MB6373DAA05CEF9AB8A83A6499DCB29@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:12:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL715WLo90-JkJe6=GfX755t1jvaW-kqD_w++hv3Ed53fhLC3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: allow KVM_BUG/KVM_BUG_ON to handle 64-bit cond
To:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:26=E2=80=AFAM Wang, Wei W <wei.w.wang@intel.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:55 PM, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > I don't get it. Why bothering the type if we just do this?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index
> > 4f26b244f6d0..10455253c6ea 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static inline void kvm_vm_bugged(struct kvm *kvm)
> >
> >  #define KVM_BUG(cond, kvm, fmt...)                           \
> >  ({                                                           \
> > -     int __ret =3D (cond);                                     \
> > +     int __ret =3D !!(cond);                                   \
>
> This is essentially "bool __ret". No biggie to change it this way.

!! will return an int, not a boolean, but it is used as a boolean.
This is consistent with the original code which _is_ returning an
integer.

> But I'm inclined to retain the original intention to have the macro retur=
n
> the value that was passed in:
> typeof(cond) __ret =3D (cond);

hmm, I think it is appropriate to retain the original type of 'cond'
especially since it may also involve other arithmetic operations. But
I doubt it will be very useful. For instance, who is going to write
this code?

......
if (KVM_BUG(cond, true) & some_mask)
  do_something()
......

>
> Let's what others vote for.

Please fix this bug first before introducing nice features.

Thanks.
-Mingwei


-Mingwei