On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:32 -0800, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> {
> int ret = -ENOTSUPP;
>
> - if (range && kvm_x86_ops.tlb_remote_flush_with_range)
> + if (range && kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range())
> ret = static_call(kvm_x86_tlb_remote_flush_with_range)(kvm, range);
Again, IMHO this code change doesn't make code any clearer. With the new code,
I need to go into the kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() to see what's going
on, but with the old code I don't.
That being said, I think kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is sort of
redundant but I can also understand callers don't want to just check whether the
callback is valid.
Btw, I had some memory that I commented this before in some old version
(therefore the 'Again' in my reply), but I failed to dig out -- partially due to
in some old versions (<= v7) I found I have no clue which patch to look at by
just looking at the patch title.
