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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans