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;
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 09:08:51 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@gmail.com>
Cc:     Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com>, maz@kernel.org,
        oliver.upton@linux.dev, seanjc@google.com,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add get-reg-list test
Message-ID: <20230529-7b3e41e6aca55f9e90dd6cd3@orel>
References: <cover.1684999824.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com>
 <da390e6200e838fce320a2a43b2f87951b4e0bbb.1684999824.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com>
 <20230525-2bab5376987792eab73507ac@orel>
 <CAJve8o=5ji5D-S8k+GaGd7sH7KXNWxDaWhD3jyxtHizKSMtjbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJve8o=5ji5D-S8k+GaGd7sH7KXNWxDaWhD3jyxtHizKSMtjbA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:39:57PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:18 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:38:35PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
...
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a6),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a7),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s2),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s3),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s4),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s5),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s6),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s7),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s8),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s9),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s10),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s11),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t3),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t4),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t5),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t6),
> >
> > ...all the above would just be indices rather than named registers. I
> > guess that's better for these registers.
> >
> 
> You mean to show it as KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]) ...
> KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[31])?
>

I'm OK with these registers using their names in this list, it does look
better. However the original idea for these lists was that they would be
generated from print_reg(). In this case, print_reg() is generating them
with their number instead of name. Either print_reg() could learn how to
generate their names by handling the offset ranges of each register type,
e.g.

switch (reg_off) {
case 10 ... 17:
   strdup_printf("... KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a%d),", reg_off - 10);

or we can use the numbers here in this list, or we can leave it as you
have it (i.e. done manually).

Thanks,
drew