2022-06-06 06:03:06

by Lai Jiangshan

Subject: [PATCH 02/12] KVM: X86/MMU: Rename kvm_unlink_unsync_page() to kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync()

From: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>

"Unlink" is ambiguous, the function does not disconnect any link.

Use "clear" instead which is an antonym of "mark" in the name of the
function mark_unsync() or kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync().

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index f61416818116..c20981dfc4fd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -1825,7 +1825,7 @@ static int mmu_unsync_walk(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
return __mmu_unsync_walk(sp, pvec);
}

-static void kvm_unlink_unsync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
+static void kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
{
WARN_ON(!sp->unsync);
trace_kvm_mmu_sync_page(sp);
@@ -1987,7 +1987,7 @@ static int mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
}

for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i) {
- kvm_unlink_unsync_page(vcpu->kvm, sp);
+ kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(vcpu->kvm, sp);
flush |= kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list) > 0;
mmu_pages_clear_parents(&parents);
}
@@ -2326,7 +2326,7 @@ static bool __kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm,
unaccount_shadowed(kvm, sp);

if (sp->unsync)
- kvm_unlink_unsync_page(kvm, sp);
+ kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(kvm, sp);
if (!sp->root_count) {
/* Count self */
(*nr_zapped)++;
--
2.19.1.6.gb485710b

2022-07-14 23:10:06

by Sean Christopherson

Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] KVM: X86/MMU: Rename kvm_unlink_unsync_page() to kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync()

On Sun, Jun 05, 2022, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
>
> "Unlink" is ambiguous, the function does not disconnect any link.
>
> Use "clear" instead which is an antonym of "mark" in the name of the
> function mark_unsync() or kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync().

Hmm, but "clearing a page" is a common operation. Might not be proper English,
but my vote is to use "unmark". KVM already uses link+unlink, account+unaccount,
etc..., so mark+unmark should be intuitive for readers.

> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index f61416818116..c20981dfc4fd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1825,7 +1825,7 @@ static int mmu_unsync_walk(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> return __mmu_unsync_walk(sp, pvec);
> }
>
> -static void kvm_unlink_unsync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> +static void kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> {
> WARN_ON(!sp->unsync);
> trace_kvm_mmu_sync_page(sp);
> @@ -1987,7 +1987,7 @@ static int mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> }
>
> for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i) {
> - kvm_unlink_unsync_page(vcpu->kvm, sp);
> + kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(vcpu->kvm, sp);
> flush |= kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list) > 0;
> mmu_pages_clear_parents(&parents);
> }
> @@ -2326,7 +2326,7 @@ static bool __kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> unaccount_shadowed(kvm, sp);
>
> if (sp->unsync)
> - kvm_unlink_unsync_page(kvm, sp);
> + kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync(kvm, sp);
> if (!sp->root_count) {
> /* Count self */
> (*nr_zapped)++;
> --
> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>