Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 01/33] KVM: Tweak kvm_hva_range and hva_handler_t to allow reusing for gfn ranges

From: Sean Christopherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:05:27 -0700

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 9/14/2023 9:54 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Rework and rename "struct kvm_hva_range" into "kvm_mmu_notifier_range" so
> > that the structure can be used to handle notifications that operate on gfn
> > context, i.e. that aren't tied to a host virtual address.
> > 
> > Practically speaking, this is a nop for 64-bit kernels as the only
> > meaningful change is to store start+end as u64s instead of unsigned longs.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email-masked]>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >   virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index 486800a7024b..0524933856d4 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -541,18 +541,22 @@ static inline struct kvm *mmu_notifier_to_kvm(struct mmu_notifier *mn)
> >   	return container_of(mn, struct kvm, mmu_notifier);
> >   }
> > -typedef bool (*hva_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > +typedef bool (*gfn_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> 
> Is it worth mentioning the rename of it as well in changelog?

Meh, I suppose.  At some point, we do have to assume a certain level of code
literacy though :-)