[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120620231112.440df9ae19c1aca36100b746@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:11:12 +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 21:21:07 +0800
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Again, "rmap" does not break the logic, the spte we handle in this function must
> be in rmap.
I'm not saying whether this breaks some logic or not.
rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
helps developers by saying "rmap_write_protect() protected ...."
For another function, the message should be "another_func_name: spte ..."
But OK, I won't argue about this anymore.
We can change the debug message later if needed.
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