Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:40:55 +0000 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM, SEV: Refactor out function for unregistering encrypted regions |
| |
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021, Peter Gonda wrote: > Factor out helper function for freeing the encrypted region list.
...
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > index 46e339c84998..5af46ff6ec48 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > @@ -1767,11 +1767,25 @@ int svm_vm_copy_asid_from(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int source_fd) > return ret; > } > > +static void __unregister_region_list_locked(struct kvm *kvm, > + struct list_head *mem_regions)
I don't think the underscores or the "locked" qualifier are necessary. Unlike __unregister_enc_region_locked(), there is no unregister_region_list() to avoid.
I'd also votes to drop "list" and instead use a plural "regions". Without the plural form, it's not immediately obvious that the difference is that this helper deletes multiple regions.
Last nit, I assume these are all encrypted regions? If so, unregister_enc_regions() seems like the natural choice.
> +{ > + struct enc_region *pos, *q; > + > + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
This locked (big thumbs up) is part of why I think it's a-ok to drop the "locked" qualifier.
> + > + if (list_empty(mem_regions)) > + return; > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, q, mem_regions, list) { > + __unregister_enc_region_locked(kvm, pos); > + cond_resched(); > + } > +}
| |