On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 07:02:12PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2022, Chao Peng wrote: > > The sync mechanism between mmu_notifier and page fault handler employs > > fields mmu_notifier_seq/count and mmu_notifier_range_start/end. For the > > to be added private memory, there is the same mechanism needed but not > > rely on mmu_notifier (It uses new introduced memfile_notifier). This > > patch renames the existing fields and related helper functions to a > > neutral name mmu_updating_* so private memory can reuse. > > mmu_updating_* is too broad of a term, e.g. page faults and many other > operations > also update the mmu. Although the name most definitely came from the > mmu_notifier, > it's not completely inaccurate for other sources, e.g. KVM's MMU is still > being > notified of something, even if the source is not the actual mmu_notifier. > > If we really want a different name, I'd vote for nomenclature that captures > the > invalidation aspect, which is really what the variables are all trackng, e.g. > > mmu_invalidate_seq > mmu_invalidate_in_progress > mmu_invalidate_range_start > mmu_invalidate_range_end
Looks good to me. Thanks. Chao
