Re: [PATCH] kvm/book3s: fix build error caused by gfn_to_hva_memslot()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alex, what do you think about this?

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:35:15 +0800
Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 05:24:00PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:42:49 +0800
> >Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> The build error was caused by that builtin functions are calling
> >> the functions implemented in modules. That was introduced by the
> >> following commit.
> >> 
> >> commit 4d8b81abc47b83a1939e59df2fdb0e98dfe0eedd
> >> 
> >> The patches fix that to convert the gfn to hva in direct way.
> >
> >Not just that...
> >
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c
> >> index 56ac1a5..0958523 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c
> >> @@ -197,7 +197,8 @@ long kvmppc_h_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long flags,
> >>  		pa &= PAGE_MASK;
> >>  	} else {
> >>  		/* Translate to host virtual address */
> >> -		hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot(memslot, gfn);
> >> +		hva = memslot->userspace_addr +
> >> +			(gfn - memslot->base_gfn) * PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> >Although I do not think what that commit wanted to do was wrong,
> >I believe the gfn_to_hva_memslot() change should have been
> >explained more explicitely, at least, to all users of
> >the not-anymore-inline function.
> >
> >Probably kvm-ppc people should re-check the call sites: what they
> >want to use may be newly introduced __gfn_to_hva_memslot() which
> >is equivalent to the original gfn_to_hva_memslot().
> >
> 
> Do you mean that move __gfn_to_hva_memslot() from kvm_main.c
> to kvm_host.h and make that "inline"?


$ grep -r gfn_to_hva_memslot .
./include/linux/kvm_host.h:unsigned long gfn_to_hva_memslot(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn);
./arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c:		hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot(memslot, gfn);
./arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c:	start = gfn_to_hva_memslot(memslot, gfn);
./arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c:	hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot(memslot, gfn);
./arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c:		hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot(memslot, gfn);
./arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c:	hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot(slot, gfn);
./virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:static unsigned long __gfn_to_hva_memslot(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
./virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:	return __gfn_to_hva_memslot(slot, gfn);
./virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:unsigned long gfn_to_hva_memslot(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
./virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gfn_to_hva_memslot);


Looks like only ppc is using this after that commit.

If the change had any meaning, it should have been understood by
its users: kvm-ppc developers in this case.

Otherwise it just added extra overheads to that simple calculation:
are the checks in __gfn_to_hva_many() going to have any meaning for
kvm-ppc in the futuer?

If not, I would suggest using __gfn_to_hva_memslot().  But if so,
there will be no user of gfn_to_hva_memslot()...

Thanks,
	Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Video]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux