On 07.05.2018 18:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/05/2018 11:22, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> >>> +/* Bits which may be returned by set_spte() */ >>> +#define WRPROT_SHADOW_PT BIT(0) >>> +#define NEED_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS BIT(1) >> Not sure if I really like returning flags. Especially as the naming does >> not suggest that or that these values are somehow linked together. >> >> What about a flag &flush? >> > > I think the flags are okay (I dislike bool return values in general), > but the naming can be improved, for example SET_SPTE_WRITE_PROTECTED and > SET_SPTE_NEED_REMOTE_FLUSH. The thing I don't like about flags is that you cannot properly handle error scenarios anymore (return -EWHATEVER). But as there are no errors scenarios to handle, fine with me :) > > Paolo > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
