On 05/02/20 14:52, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> + spte = make_spte(vcpu, pte_access, level, gfn, pfn, *sptep, speculative, >> + can_unsync, host_writable, sp_ad_disabled(sp), &ret); > I'm probably missing something, but in make_spte() I see just one place > which writes to '*ret' so at the end, this is either > SET_SPTE_WRITE_PROTECTED_PT or 0 (which we got only because we > initialize it to 0 in set_spte()). Unless this is preparation to some > other change, I don't see much value in the complication. > > Can we actually reverse the logic, pass 'spte' by reference and return > 'ret'? > It gives a similar calling convention between make_spte and make_mmio_spte. It's not the most beautiful thing but I think I prefer it. But the overwhelming function parameters are quite ugly, especially old_spte. I don't think it's an improvement, let's consider it together with the rest of your changes instead. Paolo
