Hey Will, On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 01:25:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: [...] > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:11:27PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > +int kvm_pgtable_hyp_walk(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size, > > + struct kvm_pgtable_walker *walker); > > Hmm, this feels like slightly the wrong abstraction to me -- there's nothing > hyp-specific about the problem being solved, it's just that the only user > is for hyp walks. > > Could we instead rework 'struct kvm_pgtable' slightly so that the existing > 'flags' field is no-longer stage-2 specific and includes a KVM_PGTABLE_LOCKED > flag which could be set by kvm_pgtable_hyp_init()? > > That way the top-level API remains unchanged and the existing callers will > continue to work. Thanks for the suggestion! Yeah, this should be described by the flags instead. We already have KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_SHARED, I could actually condition the RCU lock/unlock on that one. That would make it an explicit opt-in instead of requiring an opt out with callers passing KVM_PGTABLE_LOCKED. Thoughts? -- Thanks, Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
