lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 02/10] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect
On 06/20/2012 05:02 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:57:15 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Introduce a common function to abstract spte write-protect to
>> cleanup the code
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> ...
>
>> +/* Return true if the spte is dropped. */
>> +static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush)
>> +{
>> + u64 spte = *sptep;
>> +
>> + if (!is_writable_pte(spte))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -3902,16 +3915,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm, int slot)
>> !is_last_spte(pt[i], sp->role.level))
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (is_large_pte(pt[i])) {
>> - drop_spte(kvm, &pt[i]);
>> - --kvm->stat.lpages;
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> -
>> - /* avoid RMW */
>> - if (is_writable_pte(pt[i]))
>> - mmu_spte_update(&pt[i],
>> - pt[i] & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK);
>> + spte_write_protect(kvm, &pt[i], &flush);
>
> Adding rmap_printk() here seems wrong.
>


Strange! Why do you think it is wrong? It is just debug code.

> If you think it is not a problem, please explain why you think so in
> the changelog.


It is a from the first place and it is used to debug and not compiled at all.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-20 12:01    [W:0.113 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site