On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:55 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > index ec169f5c7dce..eb88d25f9896 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > @@ -278,16 +278,15 @@ static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void) > > return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range; > > } > > > > -void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, > > - gfn_t nr_pages) > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, u64 pages) > > Please keep "nr_pages", I have a very strong preference for that over just "pages" > as the "nr_" makes it super obvious that it's a single number, as opposed to an > array of pages or something. > Sure, I'll revert back to 'nr_pages'. - Raghavendra > And it doesn't truly matter, but IMO the gfn_t type is more appropriate since > the gfn and the number of pages need to have the same type.
