On 07/05/2018 21:40, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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 :) If the errors are negative and the flags are <64 they can be handled too, can't they? Paolo
