On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:53 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:28 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > index 30a52e5e68de..21046b34f94e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > @@ -121,4 +121,17 @@ void tdp_iter_start(struct tdp_iter *iter, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> > void tdp_iter_next(struct tdp_iter *iter);
> > void tdp_iter_restart(struct tdp_iter *iter);
> >
> > +static inline u64 kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bit(struct tdp_iter *iter, u64 mask)
> > +{
> > + atomic64_t *sptep;
> > +
> > + if (kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_has_volatile_bits(iter->old_spte, iter->level)) {
> > + sptep = (atomic64_t *)rcu_dereference(iter->sptep);
> > + return (u64)atomic64_fetch_and(~mask, sptep);
>
> I think you can just set iter->old_spte here and drop the return value?
>
I can do this. However, my intention was to keep the return contract
similar to kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(). On second thought, should I make
this function signature similar to kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte() just to be
consistent?
> > + }
> > +
> > + __kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(iter->sptep, iter->old_spte & ~mask);
> > + return iter->old_spte;
> > +}
