diff mbox series

[v1,01/13] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename rmap_write_protect to kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn

Message ID 20211213225918.672507-2-dmatlack@google.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series KVM: x86/mmu: Eager Page Splitting for the TDP MMU | expand

Commit Message

David Matlack Dec. 13, 2021, 10:59 p.m. UTC 
rmap_write_protect is a poor name because we may not even touch the rmap
if the TDP MMU is in use. It is also confusing that rmap_write_protect
is not a simpler wrapper around __rmap_write_protect, since that is the
typical flow for functions with double-underscore names.

Rename it to kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn to convey that we are
write-protecting a specific gfn in the context of a vCPU.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 1c10f4b4877ffaed602d12ff8cbbd5009e82c970

Comments

Sean Christopherson Jan. 6, 2022, 12:35 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> rmap_write_protect is a poor name because we may not even touch the rmap
> if the TDP MMU is in use. It is also confusing that rmap_write_protect
> is not a simpler wrapper around __rmap_write_protect, since that is the
> typical flow for functions with double-underscore names.
> 
> Rename it to kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn to convey that we are
> write-protecting a specific gfn in the context of a vCPU.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---

Hopping on the R-b train...

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 1ccee4d17481..87c3135222b3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -1421,7 +1421,7 @@  bool kvm_mmu_slot_gfn_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm,
 	return write_protected;
 }
 
-static bool rmap_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gfn)
+static bool kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gfn)
 {
 	struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
 
@@ -2024,7 +2024,7 @@  static int mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 		bool protected = false;
 
 		for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
-			protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu, sp->gfn);
+			protected |= kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(vcpu, sp->gfn);
 
 		if (protected) {
 			kvm_mmu_remote_flush_or_zap(vcpu->kvm, &invalid_list, true);
@@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@  static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	hlist_add_head(&sp->hash_link, sp_list);
 	if (!direct) {
 		account_shadowed(vcpu->kvm, sp);
-		if (level == PG_LEVEL_4K && rmap_write_protect(vcpu, gfn))
+		if (level == PG_LEVEL_4K && kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn(vcpu, gfn))
 			kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(vcpu->kvm, gfn, 1);
 	}
 	trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, true);