On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 05:41:44PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > If this looks good, my thought is to squeeze it into 6.6 so that the MGLRU
> > and guest_memfd() series can build on it. Or those series could just
> > include it?
>
> Eh, I'm not a huge fan of having two series independently reposting a
> common base. It can be a bit annoying when the two authors have slightly
> different interpretations on how to improve it...
That suggests that there's something to improve upon ;-)
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index dfbaafbe3a00..f84ef9399aee 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ typedef void (*on_unlock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm);
> > struct kvm_hva_range {
> > unsigned long start;
> > unsigned long end;
> > - pte_t pte;
> > + union kvm_mmu_notifier_arg arg;
> > hva_handler_t handler;
> > on_lock_fn_t on_lock;
> > on_unlock_fn_t on_unlock;
> > @@ -547,6 +547,8 @@ static void kvm_null_fn(void)
> > }
> > #define IS_KVM_NULL_FN(fn) ((fn) == (void *)kvm_null_fn)
> >
> > +static const union kvm_mmu_notifier_arg KVM_NO_ARG;
> > +
>
> I'm guessing you were trying to keep this short, but it might be nice to
> use MMU_NOTIFIER_ (or similar) as the prefix to make the scope
> immediately obvious.
Yeah, agreed, it's worth the extra line in kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young().
