[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb14c183-ef60-2e3b-839b-617ed39a5eea@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:14:55 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
seanjc@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/31] KVM: MMU: make spte an in-out argument in
make_spte
On 29/09/21 01:20, David Matlack wrote:
>> bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
>> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
>> unsigned int pte_access, gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn,
>> - u64 old_spte, bool speculative, bool can_unsync,
>> - bool host_writable, u64 *new_spte)
>> + bool speculative, bool can_unsync,
>> + bool host_writable, u64 *sptep)
> I'd prefer a different name since `sptep` has specific meaning
> throughout the mmu code. (It's the address of the spte in the page
> table.)
>
> Case in point, I was going to suggest we can get rid of struct
> kvm_mmu_page since it can be derived from the sptep and then realized
> how wrong that was:).
>
> Instead of receiving the new spte as a parameter what do you think about
> changing make_spte to return the new spte? I think that would make the
> code more readable (but won't reduce the number of arguments because
> you'd have to add wrprot).
>
You have a point. I've dropped this patch for now.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists