lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: MMU: fask check write-protect for direct mmu
    BTW, they are some bug fix patches on -master branch, but
    it is not existed on -next branch:
    commit: f411930442e01f9cf1bf4df41ff7e89476575c4d
    commit: 85b7059169e128c57a3a8a3e588fb89cb2031da1

    It causes code conflict if we do the development on -next.

    On 07/20/2012 08:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:can
    > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:29PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
    >> If it have no indirect shadow pages we need not protect any gfn,
    >> this is always true for direct mmu without nested
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    >
    > Xiao,
    >
    > What is the motivation? Numbers please.
    >
    > In fact, what case was the original indirect_shadow_pages conditional in
    > kvm_mmu_pte_write optimizing again?
    >
    >
    >




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-20 06:21    [W:0.024 / U:119.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site