On Thu, Aug 08, 2024, Alex Bennée wrote: > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024, Alex Bennée wrote: > >> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > Now that hva_to_pfn() no longer supports being called in atomic context, > >> > move the might_sleep() annotation from hva_to_pfn_slow() to > >> > hva_to_pfn(). > >> > >> The commentary for hva_to_pfn_fast disagrees. > >> > >> /* > >> * The fast path to get the writable pfn which will be stored in @pfn, > >> * true indicates success, otherwise false is returned. It's also the > >> * only part that runs if we can in atomic context. > >> */ > >> static bool hva_to_pfn_fast(struct kvm_follow_pfn *kfp, kvm_pfn_t *pfn) > >> > >> At which point did it loose the ability to run in the atomic context? I > >> couldn't work it out from the commits. > > > > It didn't lose the ability per se (calling hva_to_pfn_fast() in atomic context > > would still be functionally ok), rather the previous patch > > > > KVM: Drop @atomic param from gfn=>pfn and hva=>pfn APIs > > > > removed support for doing so in order to simplify hva_to_pfn() as a whole. > > It still sticks out given the only caller no longer enforces this. Oh, sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'll fix the comment, I simply missed it.
