Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-214108-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:33:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZmthZVGmgcM5NQEm@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240611215805.340664-1-seanjc@google.com> <ZmthZVGmgcM5NQEm@google.com>
Message-ID: <ZmuBxFwWLAReYUn1@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Clean up function comments for dirty
 logging APIs
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, David Matlack wrote:
> On 2024-06-11 02:58 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I don't actually care too much about the comment itself, I really just want to
> > get rid of the annoying warnings (I was *very* tempted to just delete the extra
> > asterisk), so if anyone has any opinion whatsoever...
> 
> I vote to drop it and document the nuance around PML in the function

As in, drop the function comment entirely?  I'm definitely a-ok with that too.

> > @@ -1373,14 +1354,26 @@ static void kvm_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * kvm_arch_mmu_enable_log_dirty_pt_masked - enable dirty logging for selected
> > - * PT level pages.
> > + * kvm_arch_mmu_enable_log_dirty_pt_masked - (Re)Enable dirty logging for a set
> > + * of GFNs
> >   *
> > - * It calls kvm_mmu_write_protect_pt_masked to write protect selected pages to
> > - * enable dirty logging for them.
> > + * @kvm: kvm instance
> > + * @slot: slot to containing the gfns to dirty log
> > + * @gfn_offset: start of the BITS_PER_LONG pages we care about
> 
> Someone once told me to avoid using "we" in comments :)

Darn copy+paste.