On Wed, Feb 09, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index e0c0f0bc2e8b..7b5765ced928 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -5065,12 +5065,21 @@ int kvm_mmu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return r;
}
+static void __kvm_mmu_unload(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu *mmu)
+{
+ int i;
+ kvm_mmu_free_roots(vcpu, mmu, KVM_MMU_ROOTS_ALL);
+ WARN_ON(VALID_PAGE(mmu->root_hpa));
+ if (mmu->pae_root) {
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
+ WARN_ON(IS_VALID_PAE_ROOT(mmu->pae_root[i]));
+ }
I'm somewhat ambivalent, but if you're at all on the fence, I vote to drop this
one. I've always viewed the WARN on root_hpa as gratuitous.
But, if it helped during development, then why not...