[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 07/16] x86/pmu: Rename pmu_gp_counter_is_available() to pmu_arch_event_is_available()

[Mi, Dapeng]

On 6/11/2025 12:16 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> On 5/30/2025 6:19 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void pmu_init(void)
>>>  		}
>>>  		pmu.gp_counter_width = PMC_DEFAULT_WIDTH;
>>>  		pmu.gp_counter_mask_length = pmu.nr_gp_counters;
>>> -		pmu.gp_counter_available = (1u << pmu.nr_gp_counters) - 1;
>>> +		pmu.arch_event_available = (1u << pmu.nr_gp_counters) - 1;
>> "available architectural events" and "available GP counters" are two
>> different things. I know this would be changed in later patch 09/16, but
>> it's really confusing. Could we merge the later patch 09/16 into this patch?
> Ya.  I was trying to not mix too many things in one patch, but looking at this
> again, I 100% agree that squashing 7-9 into one patch is better overall.
>
>>> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static void check_counters_many(void)
>>>  	int i, n;
>>>  
>>>  	for (i = 0, n = 0; n < pmu.nr_gp_counters; i++) {
>>> -		if (!pmu_gp_counter_is_available(i))
>>> +		if (!pmu_arch_event_is_available(i))
>>>  			continue;
>> The intent of check_counters_many() is to verify all available GP and fixed
>> counters can count correctly at the same time. So we should select another
>> available event to verify the counter instead of skipping the counter if an
>> event is not available.
> Agreed, but I'm going to defer that for now, this series already wanders in too
> many directions.  Definitely feel free to post a patch.

Sure. Thanks.