| Date | Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:26:35 +0900 | From | Takuya Yoshikawa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 05/16] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect |
| |
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:11:45 +0800 Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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
|