On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:42 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 1:58 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > @@ -1054,7 +1066,7 @@ kvm_pte_t kvm_pgtable_stage2_mkold(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr)
> > > bool kvm_pgtable_stage2_is_young(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr)
> > > {
> > > kvm_pte_t pte = 0;
> > > - stage2_update_leaf_attrs(pgt, addr, 1, 0, 0, &pte, NULL);
> > > + stage2_update_leaf_attrs(pgt, addr, 1, 0, 0, &pte, NULL, 0);
> >
> > Would be nice to have an enum for KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_EXCLUSIVE so this
> > doesn't just have to pass 0.
>
> That's also dangerous though since the param is a set of flags, not unique,
> arbitrary values. E.g. this won't do the expected thing
>
> if (flags & KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_EXCLUSIVE)
>
> I assume compilers would complain, but never say never when it comes to compilers :-)
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. IMO using one enum for multiple
flags is kind of an abuse of the enum. If you're going to put multiple
orthogonal flags in an int or whatever, it would probably be best to
have separate enums for each flag. That way you can define masks to
extract the enum from the int and only compare with == and != as
opposed to using &.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
