[PATCH v3 27/32] KVM: arm64: Refactor stage2_map_set_prot_attr()

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 02:59:57PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> In order to ease its re-use in other code paths, refactor
> stage2_map_set_prot_attr() to not depend on a stage2_map_data struct.
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 8e7059fcfd40..8aa01a9e2603 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -494,8 +494,7 @@ u64 kvm_get_vtcr(u64 mmfr0, u64 mmfr1, u32 phys_shift)
>  	return vtcr;
>  }
>  
> -static int stage2_map_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
> -				    struct stage2_map_data *data)
> +static kvm_pte_t stage2_get_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
>  {
>  	bool device = prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE;
>  	kvm_pte_t attr = device ? PAGE_S2_MEMATTR(DEVICE_nGnRE) :
> @@ -504,15 +503,15 @@ static int stage2_map_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
>  
>  	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_NONE) {
>  		if (prot != KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_NONE)
> -			return -EINVAL;
> +			return 0;

Hmm, does the architecture actually say that having all these attributes
as 0 is illegal? If not, I think it would be better to keep the int return
code and replace the 'data' parameter with a pointer to a kvm_pte_t.

Does that work?

Will