Re: [RFC 13/14] KVM: x86/MMU: Wrap uses of kvm_handle_gfn_range in mmu.c

[Ben Gardon]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 1:25 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > @@ -978,9 +978,13 @@ static void slot_rmap_walk_next(struct slot_rmap_walk_iterator *iterator)
> >            slot_rmap_walk_okay(_iter_);                               \
> >            slot_rmap_walk_next(_iter_))
> >
> > -__always_inline bool kvm_handle_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> > -                                       struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> > -                                       rmap_handler_t handler)
> > +typedef bool (*rmap_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head,
> > +                            struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn,
> > +                            int level, pte_t pte);
> > +
> > +static __always_inline bool
> > +kvm_handle_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
>
> Don't split function returns/attributes from the function declaration.  I don't
> think the rule ended up getting officially documented and enforced, but Linus was
> unequivocal when it came up[*], and I happen to agree with him :-)
>
> Actually, since I'm guessing you got the idea from existing code, can you fold
> in the attached patches to purge the existing cases in mmu.c before those uglies
> get moved around?  Assuming you don't dislike the proposed rename, that is.
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wjS-Jg7sGMwUPpDsjv392nDOOs0CtUtVkp=S6Q7JzFJRw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sounds good to me. Added the attached patches to the start of the series.

I didn't love those weird splits in the function def. Happy to see
them cleaned up too.