On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:58 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> rmap_write_protect is a poor name because we may not even touch the rmap
> if the TDP MMU is in use. It is also confusing that rmap_write_protect
> is not a simpler wrapper around __rmap_write_protect, since that is the
> typical flow for functions with double-underscore names.
>
> Rename it to kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn to convey that we are
> write-protecting a specific gfn in the context of a vCPU.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 8f0035517450..16ffb571bc75 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1427,7 +1427,7 @@ bool kvm_mmu_slot_gfn_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm,
> return write_protected;
> }
>
> -static bool rmap_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gfn)
> +static bool kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gfn)
> {
> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
>
> @@ -2026,7 +2026,7 @@ static int mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> bool protected = false;
>
> for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
> - protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu, sp->gfn);
> + protected |= kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(vcpu, sp->gfn);
>
> if (protected) {
> kvm_mmu_remote_flush_or_zap(vcpu->kvm, &invalid_list, true);
> @@ -2153,7 +2153,7 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> hlist_add_head(&sp->hash_link, sp_list);
> if (!direct) {
> account_shadowed(vcpu->kvm, sp);
> - if (level == PG_LEVEL_4K && rmap_write_protect(vcpu, gfn))
> + if (level == PG_LEVEL_4K && kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(vcpu, gfn))
> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(vcpu->kvm, gfn, 1);
> }
> trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, true);
> --
> 2.34.0.rc2.393.gf8c9666880-goog
>
