Re: [PATCH v6 2/9] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW macro to support 64-bit variation

[Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 16:22 +0800, Zeng Guang wrote:
> From: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
> 
> The Tertiary VM-Exec Control, different from previous control fields, is 64
> bit. So extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW() by adding a 'bit' parameter, to
> support both 32 bit and 64 bit fields' auxiliary functions building.
> 
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> index 7f2c82e7f38f..e07c76974fb0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> @@ -456,35 +456,38 @@ static inline u8 vmx_get_rvi(void)
>  	return vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS) & 0xff;
>  }
>  
> -#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname)				    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val)	    \
> -{									    \
> -	if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) {		    \
> -		vmcs_write32(uname, val);				    \
> -		vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val;		    \
> -	}								    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline u32 __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)	    \
> -{									    \
> -	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;				    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline u32 lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)		    \
> -{									    \
> -	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);		    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val)   \
> -{									    \
> -	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val);	    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val) \
> -{									    \
> -	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val);	    \
> +#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits)			\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)		\
> +{									\
> +	if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) {		\
> +		vmcs_write##bits(uname, val);				\
> +		vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val;		\
> +	}								\
> +}									\
> +static inline u##bits __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)\
> +{									\
> +	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;				\
> +}									\
> +static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)	\
> +{									\
> +	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);		\
> +}									\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)		\
> +{									\
> +	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val);	\
> +}									\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)	\
> +{									\
> +	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val);	\
>  }
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
>  
>  /*
>   * VMX_REGS_LAZY_LOAD_SET - The set of registers that will be updated in the

I must admit that this will make it a bit harder to find references in the code.
I personally would just use pair of 32 bit capabilities, but I don't have strong opinion
on this.

Thus:

Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky