Hi Ricardo,
On 2/7/23 3:58 AM, Ricardo Koller wrote:
Refactor kvm_arch_commit_memory_region() as a preparation for a future
commit to look cleaner and more understandable. Also, it looks more
like its x86 counterpart (in kvm_mmu_slot_apply_flags()).
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 15 +++++++++++----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index 9bd3c2cfb476..d2c5e6992459 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -1761,20 +1761,27 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
const struct kvm_memory_slot *new,
enum kvm_mr_change change)
{
+ bool log_dirty_pages = new && new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
+
/*
* At this point memslot has been committed and there is an
* allocated dirty_bitmap[], dirty pages will be tracked while the
* memory slot is write protected.
*/
- if (change != KVM_MR_DELETE && new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) {
+ if (log_dirty_pages) {
+
+ if (change == KVM_MR_DELETE)
+ return;
+
When @change is KVM_MR_DELETE, @new should be NULL. It means this check
isn't needed?
/*
* If we're with initial-all-set, we don't need to write
* protect any pages because they're all reported as dirty.
* Huge pages and normal pages will be write protect gradually.
*/
- if (!kvm_dirty_log_manual_protect_and_init_set(kvm)) {
- kvm_mmu_wp_memory_region(kvm, new->id);
- }
+ if (kvm_dirty_log_manual_protect_and_init_set(kvm))
+ return;
+
+ kvm_mmu_wp_memory_region(kvm, new->id);
}
}
Thanks,
Gavin
