Hi Xiaoyao,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 07:12:31AM -0400, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:12:31 -0400
> From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] i386/cpu: Drop the check of phys_bits in
> host_cpu_realizefn()
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1
>
> The check of cpu->phys_bits to be in range between
> [32, TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS] in host_cpu_realizefn()
> is duplicated with check in x86_cpu_realizefn().
>
> Since the ckeck in x86_cpu_realizefn() is called later and can cover all
> teh x86 case. Remove the one in host_cpu_realizefn().
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@intel.com>
> ---
> target/i386/host-cpu.c | 12 +-----------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/i386/host-cpu.c b/target/i386/host-cpu.c
> index 8b8bf5afeccf..b109c1a2221f 100644
> --- a/target/i386/host-cpu.c
> +++ b/target/i386/host-cpu.c
> @@ -75,17 +75,7 @@ bool host_cpu_realizefn(CPUState *cs, Error **errp)
> CPUX86State *env = &cpu->env;
>
> if (env->features[FEAT_8000_0001_EDX] & CPUID_EXT2_LM) {
> - uint32_t phys_bits = host_cpu_adjust_phys_bits(cpu);
> -
> - if (phys_bits &&
> - (phys_bits > TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS ||
> - phys_bits < 32)) {
> - error_setg(errp, "phys-bits should be between 32 and %u "
> - " (but is %u)",
> - TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS, phys_bits);
> - return false;
> - }
> - cpu->phys_bits = phys_bits;
> + cpu->phys_bits = host_cpu_adjust_phys_bits(cpu);
Just nit:
cpu->phys_bits can be adjusted directly in host_cpu_adjust_phys_bits(),
and no need to return it out again.
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com>
