On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, David Matlack wrote: > On 2024-06-11 02:58 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I don't actually care too much about the comment itself, I really just want to > > get rid of the annoying warnings (I was *very* tempted to just delete the extra > > asterisk), so if anyone has any opinion whatsoever... > > I vote to drop it and document the nuance around PML in the function As in, drop the function comment entirely? I'm definitely a-ok with that too. > > @@ -1373,14 +1354,26 @@ static void kvm_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm, > > } > > > > /** > > - * kvm_arch_mmu_enable_log_dirty_pt_masked - enable dirty logging for selected > > - * PT level pages. > > + * kvm_arch_mmu_enable_log_dirty_pt_masked - (Re)Enable dirty logging for a set > > + * of GFNs > > * > > - * It calls kvm_mmu_write_protect_pt_masked to write protect selected pages to > > - * enable dirty logging for them. > > + * @kvm: kvm instance > > + * @slot: slot to containing the gfns to dirty log > > + * @gfn_offset: start of the BITS_PER_LONG pages we care about > > Someone once told me to avoid using "we" in comments :) Darn copy+paste.
