> > The "set_" naming bugs me in both of the sites that get modified here. > > I'd be with a new name that fits better, if we can think of one. > > Is it because it's not clear we are updating cpu_tlbstate (in which case > I think update_cpu_tlbstate_lam() is an improvement), or is it because > the function returns a value now? If the latter we can put "return" in > the name somewhere, or keep the function void and pass in an output > parameter. Or we can avoid returning a value from the helper and avoid passing an mm. The callers would be more verbose, they'll have to call mm_lam_cr3_mask() and mm_untag_mask() and pass the results into the helper (set_tlbstate_lam_mode() or update_cpu_tlbstate_lam()). Another advantage of this is that we can move the READ_ONCE to switch_mm_irqs_off() and keep the comment here. WDYT?
