On Tue, Oct 03, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > У пн, 2023-09-11 у 11:16 +0900, David Stevens пише: > > From: David Stevens <stevensd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > @@ -4283,12 +4290,20 @@ static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault > > return RET_PF_EMULATE; > > } > > > > - async = false; > > - fault->pfn = __gfn_to_pfn_memslot(slot, fault->gfn, false, false, &async, > > - fault->write, &fault->map_writable, > > - &fault->hva); > > - if (!async) > > - return RET_PF_CONTINUE; /* *pfn has correct page already */ > > + foll.flags |= FOLL_NOWAIT; > > + fault->pfn = __kvm_follow_pfn(&foll); > > + > > + if (!is_error_noslot_pfn(fault->pfn)) > > + goto success; > Unrelated but I can't say I like the 'is_error_noslot_pfn()' name, > I wish it was called something like is_valid_pfn(). I don't love the name either, but is_valid_pfn() would be extremely confusing because the kernel already provides pfn_valid() to identify pfns/pages that are managed by the kernel. Trying to shove "guest" somewhere in the name also gets confusing because it's a host pfn, not a guest pfn.
