Re: [PATCH v8 09/13] KVM: arm64: Refactor user_mem_abort() calculation of force_pte

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/13] KVM: arm64: Refactor user_mem_abort() calculation of force_pte
From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 23:35:01 +0200
Cc: pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx, mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx, palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx, aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brauner@xxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx, yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx, chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx, amoorthy@xxxxxxxxxx, dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx, mic@xxxxxxxxxxx, vbabka@xxxxxxx, vannapurve@xxxxxxxxxx, ackerleytng@xxxxxxxxxx, mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, michael.roth@xxxxxxx, wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx, liam.merwick@xxxxxxxxxx, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx, steven.price@xxxxxxx, quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_mnalajal@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_tsoni@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_svaddagi@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_cvanscha@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_pderrin@xxxxxxxxxxx, quic_pheragu@xxxxxxxxxxx, catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx, james.morse@xxxxxxx, yuzenghui@xxxxxxxxxx, oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx, maz@xxxxxxxxxx, will@xxxxxxxxxx, qperret@xxxxxxxxxx, keirf@xxxxxxxxxx, roypat@xxxxxxxxxxxx, shuah@xxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgg@xxxxxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx, fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx, hughd@xxxxxxxxxx, jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx, pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20250430165655.605595-10-tabba@google.com>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <20250430165655.605595-1-tabba@google.com> <20250430165655.605595-10-tabba@google.com>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 30.04.25 18:56, Fuad Tabba wrote:

To simplify the code and to make the assumptions clearer,
refactor user_mem_abort() by immediately setting force_pte to
true if the conditions are met. Also, remove the comment about
logging_active being guaranteed to never be true for VM_PFNMAP
memslots, since it's not actually correct.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx>
---


Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

References:
- [PATCH v8 00/13] KVM: Mapping guest_memfd backed memory at the host for software protected VMs
  - From: Fuad Tabba
- [PATCH v8 09/13] KVM: arm64: Refactor user_mem_abort() calculation of force_pte
  - From: Fuad Tabba

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v8 08/13] KVM: guest_memfd: Allow host to map guest_memfd() pages
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] KVM: selftests: access_tracking_perf_test: Use MGLRU for access tracking
Previous by thread: [PATCH v8 09/13] KVM: arm64: Refactor user_mem_abort() calculation of force_pte
Next by thread: [PATCH v8 11/13] KVM: arm64: Enable mapping guest_memfd in arm64
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [KVM ARM] [KVM ia64] [KVM ppc] [Virtualization Tools] [Spice Development] [Libvirt] [Libvirt Users] [Linux USB Devel] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite Questions] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI] [XFree86]