On Tue, May 25, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> This comment was left over from a previous version of the patch that
> introduced wrprot_gfn_range, when skip_4k was passed in instead of
> min_level.
>
> Remove the comment (instead of fixing it) since wrprot_gfn_range has
> only one caller and min_level is documented there.
That would be ok-ish if there were no comment whatsoever, but the function comment
is now flat out wrong, which is bad.
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index 95eeb5ac6a8a..97f273912764 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -1192,8 +1192,7 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Remove write access from all the SPTEs mapping GFNs [start, end). If
> - * skip_4k is set, SPTEs that map 4k pages, will not be write-protected.
> + * Remove write access from all the SPTEs mapping GFNs [start, end).
If the goal is to avoid churn on the last sentence, what about:
* Write protect SPTEs mapping GFNs [start, end) at or above min_level.
> * Returns true if an SPTE has been changed and the TLBs need to be flushed.
> */
> static bool wrprot_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> --
> 2.32.0.rc0.204.g9fa02ecfa5-goog
>
