[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+GKo0tI2NeKiNDR@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:17:55 -0800
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc: seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, bgardon@...gle.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/5] KVM: x86/mmu: Make separate function to check for
SPTEs atomic write conditions
The shortlog is difficult to understand.
- I think it's more common to use "Add" or "Introduce" when talking
about adding a new function, rather than "Make".
- "atomic write conditions" does not mirror the code naming, which
checks for "volatile bits". e.g. The function is not called
kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write().
"volatile bits" is, at this point, pretty standard terminology in KVM
MMU to refer to "bits that can change outside the MMU lock". So I would
suggest leaning on that here.
So something like this:
KVM: x86/mmu: Add helper function to check if an SPTE has volatile bits
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:18AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> Move condition checks in kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte() for writing spte
> atomically in a separate function.
s/in a separate function/to a separate function/
>
> New function will be used inc
nit: Use complete sentences. e.g. "This new function ..." or just state
the name directly, e.g. "kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_has_volatile_bits() will be
used in ...".
> future commits to clear bits in SPTE.
s/to clear bits in SPTE/to optimize clearing bits in SPTEs/
>
> Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Code looks fine, just grammar/writing nits above.
Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists