Julia Lawall <julia.law...@inria.fr> writes: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2022, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> wangjianli <wangjia...@cdjrlc.com> writes: >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c >> > b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c >> > index 514fd45c1994..73c6db20cd8a 100644 >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c >> > @@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ long kvm_vm_ioctl_resize_hpt_commit(struct kvm *kvm, >> > * is valid, it is written to the HPT as if an H_ENTER with the >> > * exact flag set was done. When the invalid count is non-zero >> > * in the header written to the stream, the kernel will make >> > - * sure that that many HPTEs are invalid, and invalidate them >> > + * sure that many HPTEs are invalid, and invalidate them >> > * if not. >> >> The existing wording is correct: >> >> "the kernel will make sure that ... that many HPTEs are invalid" > > Maybe it would be better as "that the number of invalid HPTEs is the same > as the invalid count"?
That doesn't read quite right, I think because if the number of invalid HPTEs doesn't match the invalid count, the code will invalidate HPTEs so that the number matches. So maybe: When the invalid count is non-zero in the header written to the stream, the kernel will make sure that number of HPTEs are invalid, or invalidate them if not. cheers