On 24/06/21 12:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:58:00 +0100,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excerpts from David Stevens's message of June 24, 2021 1:57 pm:
From: David Stevens <stevensd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
out_unlock:
if (is_tdp_mmu_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa))
read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
else
write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
- kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
+ if (pfnpg.page)
+ put_page(pfnpg.page);
return r;
}
How about
kvm_release_pfn_page_clean(pfnpg);
I'm not sure. I always found kvm_release_pfn_clean() ugly, because it
doesn't mark the page 'clean'. I find put_page() more correct.
Something like 'kvm_put_pfn_page()' would make more sense, but I'm so
bad at naming things that I could just as well call it 'bob()'.
The best way to go would be to get rid of kvm_release_pfn_clean() and
always go through a pfn_page. Then we could or could not introduce
wrappers kvm_put_pfn_page{,_dirty}.
I think for now it's best to limit the churn since these patches will go
in the stable releases too, and clean up the resulting API once we have
a clear idea of how all architectures are using kvm_pfn_page.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
