On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:19:01PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:57:38AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > +bool kvm_page_track_is_valid_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > > +{
> > > + bool ret;
> > > + int idx;
> > > +
> > > + idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > + ret = kvm_is_visible_gfn(kvm, gfn);
> > > + srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_page_track_is_valid_gfn);
> > This implementation is only to check whether a GFN is within a visible
> > kvm memslot. So, why this helper function is named kvm_page_track_xxx()?
> > Don't think it's anything related to page track, and not all of its callers
> > in KVMGT are for page tracking.
>
> KVMGT is the only user of kvm_page_track_is_valid_gfn(). kvm_is_visible_gfn()
> has other users, just not in x86. And long term, my goal is to allow building
> KVM x86 without any exports. Killing off KVM's "internal" (for vendor modules)
> exports for select Kconfigs is easy enough, add adding a dedicated page-track API
> solves the KVMGT angle.
Understand!
But personally, I don't like merging this API into page-track API as
it obviously has nothing to do with page-track stuffs, and KVMGT also calls it for
non-page-track purpuse.
