On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 23:30:08 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index ec169f5c7dce2..00f7bda9202f2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -278,16 +278,14 @@ 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 gfn, u64 nr_pages)
> > {
> > int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
> > - ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, start_gfn,
> > - nr_pages);
> > - if (ret)
> > - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> > + ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);
> > +
> > + return ret;
>
> Please write this as
>
> if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
> return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);
>
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> or alternatively
>
> if (!kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);
>
> Hmm, I'll throw my official vote for the second version.
I've applied the second version locally.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
