[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210610220056.GA642297@private.email.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:00:56 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] KVM: x86/mmu: simplify argument to kvm page
fault handler
Thanks for feedback. Let me respin it.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 02:45:55PM +0200,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 26/05/21 23:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > - Have kvm_mmu_do_page_fault() handle initialization of the struct. That
> > will allow making most of the fields const, and will avoid the rather painful
> > kvm_page_fault_init().
> >
> > - Pass @vcpu separately. Yes, it's associated with the fault, but literally
> > the first line in every consumer is "struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kpf->vcpu;".
> >
> > - Use "fault" instead of "kpf", mostly because it reads better for people that
> > aren't intimately familiar with the code, but also to avoid having to refactor
> > a huge amount of code if we decide to rename kvm_page_fault, e.g. if we decide
> > to use that name to return fault information to userspace.
> >
> > - Snapshot anything that is computed in multiple places, even if it is
> > derivative of existing info. E.g. it probably makes sense to grab
>
> I agree with all of these (especially it was a bit weird not to see vcpu in
> the prototypes). Thanks Sean for the review!
>
> Paolo
>
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists