[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+EHjTye7hA7XqGSx5DvqXAcVaA9HYkC-rqeQ5fnQY7MdpHkFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:51:14 +0200
From: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: maz@...nel.org, james.morse@....com, alexandru.elisei@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ardb@...nel.org, qwandor@...gle.com,
dbrazdil@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/21] KVM: arm64: Refactor protected nVHE stage-1 locking
Hi Quentin,
> > > +int pkvm_create_mappings(void *from, void *to, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + hyp_spin_lock(&pkvm_pgd_lock);
> > > + ret = pkvm_create_mappings_locked(from, to, prot);
> > > + hyp_spin_unlock(&pkvm_pgd_lock);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > I'm wondering whether this patch should also refactor
> > __pkvm_create_mappings. It doesn't quite do the exact same thing and
> > has different parameters.
>
> Sorry, not sure I'm understanding your suggestion here. What do you
> think should be done to __pkvm_create_mappings?
Sorry, my comment wasn't very clear, and "refactor" is the wrong word.
I think it should probably be renamed, because __pkvm_create_mappings
isn't called by pkvm_create_mappings nor by
pkvm_create_mappings_locked. It also has different parameters and
behaves slightly differently.
Thanks,
/fuad
> Cheers,
> Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists