On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:22:30AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 02:06:41PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:31:52PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -1101,52 +1099,55 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > if (mem->guest_phys_addr + mem->memory_size < mem->guest_phys_addr)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - slot = id_to_memslot(__kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id), id);
> > > - base_gfn = mem->guest_phys_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > - npages = mem->memory_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > -
> > > - if (npages > KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > -
> > > /*
> > > * Make a full copy of the old memslot, the pointer will become stale
> > > * when the memslots are re-sorted by update_memslots().
> > > */
> > > - old = *slot;
> > > + tmp = id_to_memslot(__kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id), id);
> > > + old = *tmp;
> > > + tmp = NULL;
> >
> > Shall we keep this chunk to the patch where it will be used? Other
> > than that, it looks good to me.
>
> I assume you're talking about doing this instead of using @tmp?
>
> old = *id_to_memslot(__kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id), id);
Yes.
>
> It's obviously possible, but I really like resulting diff for
> __kvm_set_memory_region() in "KVM: Terminate memslot walks via used_slots"
> when tmp is used.
>
> @@ -1104,8 +1203,13 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> * when the memslots are re-sorted by update_memslots().
> */
> tmp = id_to_memslot(__kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id), id);
> - old = *tmp;
> - tmp = NULL;
> + if (tmp) {
> + old = *tmp;
> + tmp = NULL;
> + } else {
> + memset(&old, 0, sizeof(old));
> + old.id = id;
> + }
I normally don't do that, for each patch I'll try to make it
consistent to itself, assuming that follow-up patches can be rejected.
I don't have strong opinion either, please feel free to keep them if
no one disagrees.
--
Peter Xu
