[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3SQ3wogsVUEu1Qe@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:27:27 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Don't acquire RCU read lock for exclusive
table walks
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:08:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> I'm not crazy about this sort of parameters. I think it would make a
> lot more sense to pass a pointer to the walker structure and do the
> flag check inside the helper.
>
> That way, we avoid extra churn if/when we need extra state or
> bookkeeping around the walk.
Sure, let's go that way instead. v3 on the way lol :)
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists