From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to kvm_emulate_msr_{read,write}()* to make it
more obvious that KVM uses these helpers to emulate guest behaviors,
i.e., host_initiated == false in these helpers.
Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Suggested-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 8 ++++----
arch/x86/kvm/smm.c | 4 ++--
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 13 +++++++------
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 142a8421400f..1f3f8601747f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -2150,11 +2150,11 @@ void kvm_prepare_event_vectoring_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa);
void kvm_enable_efer_bits(u64);
bool kvm_valid_efer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 efer);
-int kvm_get_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
-int kvm_set_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
+int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
+int kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
int __kvm_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data, bool host_initiated);
-int kvm_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
-int kvm_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
+int kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
+int kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
int kvm_emulate_rdmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
int kvm_emulate_wrmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
int kvm_emulate_as_nop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/smm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/smm.c
index 9864c057187d..51d0646622ef 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/smm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/smm.c
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ static int rsm_load_state_64(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
vcpu->arch.smbase = smstate->smbase;
- if (kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_EFER, smstate->efer & ~EFER_LMA))
+ if (kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, MSR_EFER, smstate->efer & ~EFER_LMA))
return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
rsm_load_seg_64(vcpu, &smstate->tr, VCPU_SREG_TR);
@@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int emulator_leave_smm(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
/* And finally go back to 32-bit mode. */
efer = 0;
- kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_EFER, efer);
+ kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, MSR_EFER, efer);
}
#endif
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
index c69df3aba8d1..e7374834453c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
@@ -991,7 +991,7 @@ static u32 nested_vmx_load_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u32 count)
__func__, i, e.index, e.reserved);
goto fail;
}
- if (kvm_set_msr_with_filter(vcpu, e.index, e.value)) {
+ if (kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(vcpu, e.index, e.value)) {
pr_debug_ratelimited(
"%s cannot write MSR (%u, 0x%x, 0x%llx)\n",
__func__, i, e.index, e.value);
@@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static bool nested_vmx_get_vmexit_msr_value(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
}
}
- if (kvm_get_msr_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, data)) {
+ if (kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, data)) {
pr_debug_ratelimited("%s cannot read MSR (0x%x)\n", __func__,
msr_index);
return false;
@@ -2764,7 +2764,7 @@ static int prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12,
if ((vmcs12->vm_entry_controls & VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)) &&
- WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
vmcs12->guest_ia32_perf_global_ctrl))) {
*entry_failure_code = ENTRY_FAIL_DEFAULT;
return -EINVAL;
@@ -4752,8 +4752,9 @@ static void load_vmcs12_host_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
}
if ((vmcs12->vm_exit_controls & VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)))
- WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
- vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu,
+ MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
+ vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
/* Set L1 segment info according to Intel SDM
27.5.2 Loading Host Segment and Descriptor-Table Registers */
@@ -4931,7 +4932,7 @@ static void nested_vmx_restore_host_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
goto vmabort;
}
- if (kvm_set_msr_with_filter(vcpu, h.index, h.value)) {
+ if (kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(vcpu, h.index, h.value)) {
pr_debug_ratelimited(
"%s WRMSR failed (%u, 0x%x, 0x%llx)\n",
__func__, j, h.index, h.value);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 7543dac7ae70..11d84075cd14 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -1929,33 +1929,35 @@ static int kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
__kvm_get_msr);
}
-int kvm_get_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
+int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
+ u64 *data)
{
if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_READ))
return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_get_msr_with_filter);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter);
-int kvm_set_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
+int kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
+ u64 data)
{
if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_WRITE))
return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
return kvm_set_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_set_msr_with_filter);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter);
-int kvm_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
+int kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
{
return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_get_msr);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_read);
-int kvm_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
+int kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
{
return kvm_set_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_set_msr);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_write);
static void complete_userspace_rdmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
@@ -2027,7 +2029,7 @@ int kvm_emulate_rdmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
u64 data;
int r;
- r = kvm_get_msr_with_filter(vcpu, ecx, &data);
+ r = kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(vcpu, ecx, &data);
if (!r) {
trace_kvm_msr_read(ecx, data);
@@ -2052,7 +2054,7 @@ int kvm_emulate_wrmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
u64 data = kvm_read_edx_eax(vcpu);
int r;
- r = kvm_set_msr_with_filter(vcpu, ecx, data);
+ r = kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(vcpu, ecx, data);
if (!r) {
trace_kvm_msr_write(ecx, data);
@@ -8484,7 +8486,7 @@ static int emulator_get_msr_with_filter(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = emul_to_vcpu(ctxt);
int r;
- r = kvm_get_msr_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, pdata);
+ r = kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, pdata);
if (r < 0)
return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
@@ -8507,7 +8509,7 @@ static int emulator_set_msr_with_filter(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = emul_to_vcpu(ctxt);
int r;
- r = kvm_set_msr_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, data);
+ r = kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(vcpu, msr_index, data);
if (r < 0)
return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
@@ -8527,7 +8529,7 @@ static int emulator_set_msr_with_filter(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
static int emulator_get_msr(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
u32 msr_index, u64 *pdata)
{
- return kvm_get_msr(emul_to_vcpu(ctxt), msr_index, pdata);
+ return kvm_emulate_msr_read(emul_to_vcpu(ctxt), msr_index, pdata);
}
static int emulator_check_rdpmc_early(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, u32 pmc)
--
2.47.1On 7/4/2025 1:49 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
> @@ -2764,7 +2764,7 @@ static int prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12,
>
> if ((vmcs12->vm_entry_controls & VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
> kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)) &&
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
> vmcs12->guest_ia32_perf_global_ctrl))) {
Not sure if the alignment should be adjusted based on the above modified
line.
> *entry_failure_code = ENTRY_FAIL_DEFAULT;
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -4752,8 +4752,9 @@ static void load_vmcs12_host_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> }
> if ((vmcs12->vm_exit_controls & VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
> kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)))
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
> - vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu,
> + MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
> + vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
Same here.
>
> /* Set L1 segment info according to Intel SDM
> 27.5.2 Loading Host Segment and Descriptor-Table Registers */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 7543dac7ae70..11d84075cd14 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -1929,33 +1929,35 @@ static int kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> __kvm_get_msr);
> }
>
> -int kvm_get_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
> +int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
> + u64 *data)
I think the extra new line doesn't improve readability, but it's the
maintainer's call.
> {
> if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_READ))
> return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
> return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_get_msr_with_filter);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter);
>
> -int kvm_set_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
> +int kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
Ditto.
> + u64 data)
> {
> if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_WRITE))
> return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 03:31:41PM -0700, Xin Li wrote:
>On 7/4/2025 1:49 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
>> @@ -2764,7 +2764,7 @@ static int prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12,
>> if ((vmcs12->vm_entry_controls & VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
>> kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)) &&
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
>> vmcs12->guest_ia32_perf_global_ctrl))) {
>
>Not sure if the alignment should be adjusted based on the above modified
>line.
I prefer to align the indentation. so will do.
>
>> *entry_failure_code = ENTRY_FAIL_DEFAULT;
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -4752,8 +4752,9 @@ static void load_vmcs12_host_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> }
>> if ((vmcs12->vm_exit_controls & VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL) &&
>> kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)))
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
>> - vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu,
>> + MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL,
>> + vmcs12->host_ia32_perf_global_ctrl));
>
>Same here.
ack.
>
>> /* Set L1 segment info according to Intel SDM
>> 27.5.2 Loading Host Segment and Descriptor-Table Registers */
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 7543dac7ae70..11d84075cd14 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -1929,33 +1929,35 @@ static int kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> __kvm_get_msr);
>> }
>> -int kvm_get_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
>> +int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
>> + u64 *data)
>
>I think the extra new line doesn't improve readability, but it's the
>maintainer's call.
>
Sure. Seems "let it poke out" is Sean's preference. I saw he made similar
requests several times. e.g.,
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/ZjQgA0ml4-mRJC-e@google.com/
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 03:31:41PM -0700, Xin Li wrote:
> >> /* Set L1 segment info according to Intel SDM
> >> 27.5.2 Loading Host Segment and Descriptor-Table Registers */
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> index 7543dac7ae70..11d84075cd14 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> @@ -1929,33 +1929,35 @@ static int kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> __kvm_get_msr);
> >> }
> >> -int kvm_get_msr_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
> >> +int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index,
> >> + u64 *data)
> >
> >I think the extra new line doesn't improve readability, but it's the
> >maintainer's call.
> >
>
> Sure. Seems "let it poke out" is Sean's preference. I saw he made similar
> requests several times. e.g.,
Depends on the situation. I'd probably mentally flip a coin in this case.
But what I'd actually do here is choose names that are (a) less verbose and (b)
capture the relationship between the APIs. Instead of:
int kvm_emulate_msr_read_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
int kvm_emulate_msr_write_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
int kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
int kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
rename to:
int kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
int kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
int __kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data);
int __kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data);
And then we can do a follow-up patch to solidify the relationship:
--
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:13:48 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Use double-underscore read/write MSR helpers as
appropriate
Use the double-underscore helpers for emulating MSR reads and writes in
he no-underscore versions to better capture the relationship between the
two sets of APIs (the double-underscore versions don't honor userspace MSR
filters).
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 09b106a5afdf..65c787bcfe8b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -1932,11 +1932,24 @@ static int kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
__kvm_get_msr);
}
+int __kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
+{
+ return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kvm_emulate_msr_read);
+
+int __kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
+{
+ return kvm_set_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kvm_emulate_msr_write);
+
int kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
{
if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_READ))
return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
- return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
+
+ return __kvm_emulate_msr_read(vcpu, index, data);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_read);
@@ -1944,21 +1957,11 @@ int kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
{
if (!kvm_msr_allowed(vcpu, index, KVM_MSR_FILTER_WRITE))
return KVM_MSR_RET_FILTERED;
- return kvm_set_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
+
+ return __kvm_emulate_msr_write(vcpu, index, data);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_emulate_msr_write);
-int __kvm_emulate_msr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 *data)
-{
- return kvm_get_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kvm_emulate_msr_read);
-
-int __kvm_emulate_msr_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 data)
-{
- return kvm_set_msr_ignored_check(vcpu, index, data, false);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kvm_emulate_msr_write);
static void complete_userspace_rdmsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
base-commit: 1877e7b0749cbaa2d2ba4056eeda93adb373f7d4
--
On Fri, 2025-07-04 at 01:49 -0700, Chao Gao wrote:
> From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
>
> Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to kvm_emulate_msr_{read,write}()* to make it
> more obvious that KVM uses these helpers to emulate guest behaviors,
> i.e., host_initiated == false in these helpers.
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Nit: I don't think your Reviewed-by is needed if the chain already has
your SoB?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-07-04 at 01:49 -0700, Chao Gao wrote:
> > From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> >
> > Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to kvm_emulate_msr_{read,write}()* to make it
> > more obvious that KVM uses these helpers to emulate guest behaviors,
> > i.e., host_initiated == false in these helpers.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > Suggested-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
>
> Nit: I don't think your Reviewed-by is needed if the chain already has
> your SoB?
Keep the Reviewed-by, it's still useful, e.g. to communicate that Chao has done
more than just shepherd the patch along.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.