On 06/20/2012 08:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:11:06 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.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 kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
