From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A72C2D0E4 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C26322264 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="g9lD0bCx" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6C26322264 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A97806B006C; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A1E9E6B006E; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:55:07 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8E7326B0070; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:55:07 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0093.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.93]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581DD6B006C for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C0E363C for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:55:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77505245454.23.beast92_3c0227a2734c Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F8637604 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:55:06 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: beast92_3c0227a2734c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5141 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by imf41.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:55:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1605887705; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rY2Rec5SHAHV9d9Nn2wvBLT2el7uEj1Kc43gm3aG5HM=; b=g9lD0bCxENPqcIGc2Z5tasWLJyAqqyHwdIWyhdE3T+gFEmncp1Z07rSQz1E2Gi3/qTwJ+3 skp0DCXX7dsULaSAGcfW7EiyaIfzVDY8pSkV/5a65pPivfHUbXb+ZLHeS7GQuCmhACXkH8 bIu4k/kvl7e+wNF5Tqkh0s8Olh/H8HQ= Received: from mail-ej1-f70.google.com (mail-ej1-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-300-vJh6GCl7Pk2dz0dp9dzimQ-1; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:55:03 -0500 X-MC-Unique: vJh6GCl7Pk2dz0dp9dzimQ-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f70.google.com with SMTP id j18so2077129ejs.12 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:55:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rY2Rec5SHAHV9d9Nn2wvBLT2el7uEj1Kc43gm3aG5HM=; b=CikuYKnYTeVD7PydLWX9fv7RwWoZt77MHZ6uoD39AzxaFQdrLfcIFiBvU15pcn/adl CUJzGLGICmhpC0HJgJnDRj6X+eOuWZgPH9BSuN87Lesxhu7NqVtl6DF0LIgSm0/3PxfY CS6+znV7zPDi6HbBejT0MbAo7rRHJtbHuNUqSCrvpQ/CXfWS53RF0s67vaYw7509JKOC 23Up8FcS3SiHBOiWpphz5B+mASqNGiG7GkGW3Mup/5hMSx7YoiUNMKZxvkTDtBFrHtxL pl476cE2ORmBUFMYYSqHr6XSrgbs19U0WYfSqMYGViQewm2W7K7LiF8nagdgL8gD5Vgc BR9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rZlvLMow1315ZF0OI98CYfEEMT2sBaKb0G2ZktcsOjR4YICuh hR1VGU4RYf1s6i+yzH/wGbzPeUZx2joyKyNGbtayLHxkVBaFvq8iOWrp9P4krS8asOUlBklXw+P xGu3HAPmQSKs= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d2d9:: with SMTP id k25mr34928705edr.310.1605887702588; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:55:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3gVlgwW/bmEajthpJVdpMUNtgPUbi/HFUtFVuvcpkMu9pSTRR3a9KC3tEdlGleoOWxNajPA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d2d9:: with SMTP id k25mr34928681edr.310.1605887702427; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r25sm1300693eji.8.2020.11.20.07.55.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:55:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 16/17] RFC: kvm: pass kvm argument to follow_pfn callsites To: Daniel Vetter Cc: DRI Development , LKML , KVM list , Linux MM , Linux ARM , linux-samsung-soc , "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Daniel Vetter , Christoph Hellwig , Jason Gunthorpe , Kees Cook , Dan Williams , Andrew Morton , John Hubbard , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Jan Kara References: <20201119144146.1045202-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20201119144146.1045202-17-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <3eca2dde-c78b-3eb4-8f61-7fdf16573419@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:55:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 20/11/20 16:44, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> It's a bit of a pity, it's making an API more complex (the point of >> gfn_to_pfn_memslot vs gfn_to_pfn is exactly that you don't need a >> "struct kvm*" and it's clear that you've already done the lookup into >> that struct kvm. > > Yeah I noticed that, I think pushing the lookups down should work, but > that's a fairly large-scale change. I didn't want to do that for the > RFC since it would distract from the actual change/goal. > -Daniel Pushing the lookups down would be worse code and possibly introduce TOC/TOU races, so better avoid that. Your patch is fine. :) Paolo