On 26.04.2025 09:28, dm...@proton.me wrote:
> @@ -1957,8 +1955,7 @@ void cf_check vmx_do_resume(void)
> hvm_do_resume(v);
>
> /* Sync host CR4 in case its value has changed. */
> - __vmread(HOST_CR4, &host_cr4);
> - if ( host_cr4 != read_cr4() )
> + if ( vmread(HOST_CR4) != read_cr4() )
It's unclear to me whether this constitutes a violation of Misra rule 13.2.
There are two function calls in this expression. Both funcs are inline, and
vmread() is even always_inline, but they're still function calls, which can
be carried out in either order. And neither can plausibly be pure, let
alone const.
> @@ -1573,12 +1565,12 @@ static void cf_check vmx_get_nonreg_state(struct vcpu
> *v,
> {
> vmx_vmcs_enter(v);
>
> - __vmread(GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE, &nrs->vmx.activity_state);
> - __vmread(GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO, &nrs->vmx.interruptibility_info);
> - __vmread(GUEST_PENDING_DBG_EXCEPTIONS, &nrs->vmx.pending_dbg);
> + nrs->vmx.activity_state = vmread(GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE);
This struct field can now also shrink down to unsigned int (or uit32_t if need
be). Likely there are others (and maybe also plain variables). Which in turn
is an indication that, as was suggested before, this patch wants further
splitting up. That'll also help with overall progress, as then what's
uncontroversial and not in need of further adjustment can go in right away.
Jan
