Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:14:19 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Don't acquire RCU read lock for exclusive
 table walks
Message-ID: <Y3Sb20U9rCIuOU3L@google.com>
References: <20221115225502.2240227-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
 <868rkbppdq.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <Y3SQ3wogsVUEu1Qe@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3SQ3wogsVUEu1Qe@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 07:27:27AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:08:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > I'm not crazy about this sort of parameters. I think it would make a
> > lot more sense to pass a pointer to the walker structure and do the
> > flag check inside the helper.
> > 
> > That way, we avoid extra churn if/when we need extra state or
> > bookkeeping around the walk.
> 
> Sure, let's go that way instead. v3 on the way lol :)

Well, going this route is going to require hoisting around a few things.

I'd very much prefer to keep the RCU indirection ifdeffery all in one
place, but I'll need to haul it all after the definitions of kvm_pgtable_walker
and kvm_pgtable_walk_flags but before the definition of kvm_pgtable
(as it needs kvm_pteref_t).

I'm not too bothered by it, but not quite as small of a bandaid this
time around.

--
Thanks,
Oliver