On 22/10/19 17:28, Sean Christopherson wrote:

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 04:04:18PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

quoted

On 22/10/19 02:35, Sean Christopherson wrote:

quoted

+static inline int kvm_shift_memslots_forward(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
+					     struct kvm_memory_slot *new)
+{
+	struct kvm_memory_slot *mslots = slots->memslots;
+	int i;
+
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slots->id_to_index[new->id] == -1) ||
+	    WARN_ON_ONCE(!slots->used_slots))
+		return -1;
+
+	for (i = slots->id_to_index[new->id]; i < slots->used_slots - 1; i++) {
+		if (new->base_gfn > mslots[i + 1].base_gfn)
+			break;
+
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(new->base_gfn == mslots[i + 1].base_gfn);
+
+		/* Shift the next memslot forward one and update its index. */
+		mslots[i] = mslots[i + 1];
+		slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
+	}
+	return i;
+}
+
+static inline int kvm_shift_memslots_back(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
+					  struct kvm_memory_slot *new,
+					  int start)

This new implementation of the insertion sort loses the comments that
were there in the old one.  Please keep them as function comments.

I assume you're talking about this blurb in particular?

	 * The ">=" is needed when creating a slot with base_gfn == 0,
	 * so that it moves before all those with base_gfn == npages == 0.

Yes, well all of the comments.  You can also keep them in the caller, as
you prefer.

Paolo


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel