On 20/11/20 16:44, Daniel Vetter wrote:
It's a bit of a pity, it's making an API more complex (the point of
gfn_to_pfn_memslot vs gfn_to_pfn is exactly that you don't need a
"struct kvm*" and it's clear that you've already done the lookup into
that struct kvm.
Yeah I noticed that, I think
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:33 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 19/11/20 15:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Both Christoph Hellwig and Jason Gunthorpe suggested that usage of
> > follow_pfn by modules should be locked down more. To do so callers
> > need to be able to pass the mmu_notifier subscription
On 19/11/20 15:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Both Christoph Hellwig and Jason Gunthorpe suggested that usage of
follow_pfn by modules should be locked down more. To do so callers
need to be able to pass the mmu_notifier subscription corresponding
to the mm_struct to follow_pfn().
This patch does the
Both Christoph Hellwig and Jason Gunthorpe suggested that usage of
follow_pfn by modules should be locked down more. To do so callers
need to be able to pass the mmu_notifier subscription corresponding
to the mm_struct to follow_pfn().
This patch does the rote work of doing that in the kvm
