[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CU66VMG4IKSD.33KF2CEZJ2I1@suppilovahvero>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:39:23 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Marc Zyngier" <maz@...nel.org>,
"Oliver Upton" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"Anup Patel" <anup@...infault.org>,
"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@...belt.com>,
"Albert Ou" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@...l-moore.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chao Peng" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"Fuad Tabba" <tabba@...gle.com>,
"Yu Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Vishal Annapurve" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
"Ackerley Tng" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
"Maciej Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>,
"Quentin Perret" <qperret@...gle.com>,
"Michael Roth" <michael.roth@....com>,
"Wang" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
"Liam Merwick" <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
"Isaku Yamahata" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 01/29] KVM: Wrap kvm_gfn_range.pte in a
per-action union
On Wed Jul 19, 2023 at 2:44 AM EEST, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> /* Huge pages aren't expected to be modified without first being zapped. */
> - WARN_ON(pte_huge(range->pte) || range->start + 1 != range->end);
> + WARN_ON(pte_huge(range->arg.pte) || range->start + 1 != range->end);
Not familiar with this code. Just checking whether whether instead
pr_{warn,err}() combined with return false would be a more graceful
option?
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists