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>
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@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 1ccee4d17481..87c3135222b3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -1421,7 +1421,7 @@ 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;
@@ -2024,7 +2024,7 @@ 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);
@@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@ 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);
base-commit: 1c10f4b4877ffaed602d12ff8cbbd5009e82c970
--
2.34.1.173.g76aa8bc2d0-goog
