On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:01 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > > +static void kvm_rmap_zap_collapsible_sptes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > + const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * Note, use KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL - 1 since there's no need to zap
> > > + * pages that are already mapped at the maximum possible level.
> > > + */
> > > + if (slot_handle_level(kvm, slot, kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte,
> > > + PG_LEVEL_4K, KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL - 1,
> > > + true))
> >
> > No need to wrap, "true" fits easily on the previous line. That said, I don't see
> > any point in adding a helper. It's highly unlike there will be another caller,
> > and IMO it's not any more readable since I have to go look at another function
> > when reading kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_sptes().
>
> I could see an argument for readability either way. Putting it in a
> helper function abstracts away the details, which would aid
> readability if the reader does not care about the implementation
> details of the rmap case.
I'm ok either way, dealer's choice.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
