On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 2:03 PM Ben Gardon <bgar...@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:40 AM David Matlack <dmatl...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to common code and drop > > "arch_" from the name. kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() is just a > > range-based TLB invalidation where the range is defined by the memslot. > > Now that kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range() can be called from common code we > > can just use that and drop a bunch of duplicate code from the arch > > directories. > > > > Note this adds a lockdep assertion for slot_lock being held when calling > > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot(), which was previously only asserted on > > x86. > > Besides the one lockdep assertion, is there any benefit to having this > wrapper function? Open-coding "kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(kvm, > memslot->base_gfn, memslot->npages);" is only a slightly longer line > and, IMO, just as readable. I'm happy to see this cleanup, but it > might be just as easy to drop the function.
The wrapper makes lines shorter, adds a lockdep assertion, and is just as readable. What's the reason to drop it? _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
