Re: [RFC PATCH v5 09/45] KVM: x86: Rework .free_external_spt() into .reclaim_external_sp()

[Yan Zhao]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 02:38:08PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 05:45:39PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 05:14:41PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index d12ca0f8a348..b35a07ed11fb 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -1858,8 +1858,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
> > > >  				 u64 mirror_spte);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Update external page tables for page table about to be freed. */
> > > > -	int (*free_external_spt)(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, enum pg_level level,
> > > > -				 void *external_spt);
> > > > +	void (*reclaim_external_sp)(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> > > > +				    struct kvm_mmu_page *sp);
> > > Do you think "free" is still better than "reclaim" though TDX actually
> > > invokes tdx_reclaim_page() to reclaim it on the TDX side?
> > > 
> > > Naming it free_external_sp can be interpreted as freeing the sp->external_spt
> > > externally (vs freeing it in tdp_mmu_free_sp_rcu_callback(). This naming also
> > > allows for the future possibility of freeing sp->external_spt before the HKID is
> > > freed (though this is unlikely).
> > Oh. I found there's a free_external_sp() in patch 20.
> > 
> > So, maybe reclaim_external_sp() --> remove_external_spt() ?
> > 
> > Still think "sp" is not good :)
> 
> I think my vote would be for reclaim_external_spt().  I don't like "remove", because
> similar to "free", I think most readers will assume success is guaranteed.
Ok. reclaim_external_spt() looks good to me.