Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: lYxwhl60KN6YQKEWJLRVb4subtGPKhodt6KGimpn+y0dX4ffBEBxA893xy6y55t3TniFGn9fJI
 uJggyDxNaLZw==
IronPort-SDR: aw/mqSt0VD6UBmHQwsU0wYx6f6DwfujzsoTj23//ldTuw5Nx0Xxgh9c4y3m5b78/1u0mHirB4M
 Sm0/LN52yJcQ==
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 07:39:24 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Stash 'kvm' in a local variable in
 kvm_mmu_free_roots()
Message-ID: <20200924143922.GA22539@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200923191204.8410-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <875z83e47o.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875z83e47o.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:42:19PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> What about kvm_mmu_get_page(), make_mmu_pages_available(),
> mmu_alloc_root(), kvm_mmu_sync_roots(), direct_page_fault(),
> kvm_mmu_pte_write() which seem to be using the same ugly pattern? :-)

Heh, good question.  I guess only kvm_mmu_free_roots() managed to cross over
the threshold from "that's ugly" to "this is ridiculous".