Re: [PATCH v2 05/16] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect

[Takuya Yoshikawa]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:11:45 +0800
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +/* Return true if the spte is dropped. */

Return value does not correspond with the function name so it is confusing.

People may think that true means write protection has been done.

> +static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool large,
> +			       bool *flush)
> +{
> +	u64 spte = *sptep;
> +
> +	if (!is_writable_pte(spte))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	*flush |= true;
> +
> +	if (large) {
> +		pgprintk("rmap_write_protect(large): spte %p %llx\n",
> +			 spte, *spte);
> +		BUG_ON(!is_large_pte(spte));
> +
> +		drop_spte(kvm, sptep);
> +		--kvm->stat.lpages;
> +		return true;
> +	}

This suggests we should use separate functions?

	Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/