Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. No worries, with the fixed comment: Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
