On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 10:02 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 you don't mind, I prefer not risking making this commit change some
functionality.
>
> > /*
> > * 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
>
>
>
