[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120620215653.15930f3467bc13748d548b0d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:56:53 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/10] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:11:06 +0800
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Strange! Why do you think it is wrong? It is just debug code.
kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() does not use rmap but the debug code says:
rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
> > 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.
It was not in kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() before, no?
This patch says that the write protection code becomes commonly usable
function, but it still has rmap_write_protect specific debug code in it;
using it in kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(), which is not at all related
to rmap_write_protect, is strange.
As you say, this is just debug code and does not have any practical problem.
But randomly putting debug code is not a good thing.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
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