On 2024/2/22 下午5:45, WANG Xuerui wrote:
Hi,+ case 0 ... 1:
On 2/17/24 11:03, maobibo wrote:
Hi Xuerui,
Good catch, and thank for your patch.
On 2024/2/16 下午4:58, WANG Xuerui wrote:
[snip]how about something like this?
@@ -324,31 +319,33 @@ static int _kvm_get_cpucfg(int id, u64 *v)
if (cpu_has_lasx)
*v |= CPUCFG2_LASX;
- break;
+ return 0;
+ case 0 ... 1:
+ case 3 ... KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1:
+ /* no restrictions on other CPUCFG IDs' values */
+ *v = U64_MAX;
+ return 0;
default:
/* no restrictions on other CPUCFG IDs' values */
*v = U64_MAX;
return 0;
I don't think this version correctly expresses the intent. Note that the CPUCFG ID range check is squashed into the switch as well, so one switch conveniently expresses the three intended cases at once:
* the special treatment of CPUCFG2,
+ case 3 ... KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1:
+ /* no restrictions on other CPUCFG IDs' values */
+ *v = U64_MAX;
+ return 0;
cpucfg6 checking will be added for PMU support soon. So it will be
case 6:
do something check for cpucfg6
return mask;
case 0 ... 1:
case 3 ... 5:
case 7 ... KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1:
*v = U64_MAX;
return 0;
If you think it is reasonable to add these separate "case" sentences, I have no objection.* all-allow rules for other in-range CPUCFG IDs, andstatic int kvm_check_cpucfg(int id, u64 val)
* rejection for out-of-range IDs.
{
- u64 mask;
- int ret = 0;
-
- if (id < 0 && id >= KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
- return -EINVAL;
you can modify && with ||, like this:
if (id < 0 || id >= KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
return -EINVAL;