[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE4D8C9.90302@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:42:01 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] KVM: MMU: remove 'clear_unsync' parameter
On 11/18/2010 12:49 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
bool clear_unsync)
>> +static int FNAME(sync_page)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>> {
>> int i, offset, nr_present;
>> bool host_writable;
>> @@ -781,7 +780,7 @@ static int FNAME(sync_page)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
>> u64 nonpresent;
>>
>> if (rsvd_bits_set || is_present_gpte(gpte) ||
>> - !clear_unsync)
>> + sp->unsync)
>> nonpresent = shadow_trap_nonpresent_pte;
>> else
>> nonpresent = shadow_notrap_nonpresent_pte;
>
> Its better to keep this explicit as a parameter.
>
But after patch 6 (KVM: MMU: cleanup update_pte, pte_prefetch and sync_page functions),
this parameter is not used anymore... i don't have strong opinion on it :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists