[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FE1CE43.9080203@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:21:07 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.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 06/20/2012 08:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> 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);
It is not a problem since all sptes which are pointing to gfn is existed in rmap.
>
>>> 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.
>
Again, "rmap" does not break the logic, the spte we handle in this function must
be in rmap.
--
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