On 19.11.21 10:00, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 10/28/21 16:48, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: >> On 10/28/21 16:25, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 28.10.21 15:55, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: >>>> Introduce a helper function for guest frame access. >>> >>> "guest page access" >> >> Ok. >>> >>> But I do wonder if you actually want to call it >>> >>> "access_guest_abs" >>> >>> and say "guest absolute access" instead here. >>> >>> Because we're dealing with absolute addresses and the fact that we are >>> accessing it page-wise is just because we have to perform a page-wise >>> translation in the callers (either virtual->absolute or real->absolute). >>> >>> Theoretically, if you know you're across X pages but they are contiguous >>> in absolute address space, nothing speaks against using that function >>> directly across X pages with a single call. >> >> There currently is no point to this, is there? >> kvm_read/write_guest break the region up into pages anyway, >> so no reason to try to identify larger continuous chunks. > Right, we're changing the calls from e.g., kvm_write_guest() and write_guest_abs() to kvm_write_guest_page(). As we're not exposing this function via arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h, I think it's ok. Because for external functions we have nice function names like write_guest_abs(), write_guest_real(), write_guest_lc(), write_guest(), which implicitly state in their name which kind of address they expect. access_guest_page() now accepts an absolute address whereby access_guest() accepts a virtual address. This is for example different to kvm_read_guest() and kvm_read_guest_page(), which expect absolute addresses. But there, the _page functions are not internal helpers. > > @David: How strongly do you feel about this? Not strongly :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
