On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:51:34PM +0300, Abel Gordon wrote:
>
>
> Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> wrote on 12/04/2013 01:48:04 PM:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:44:14PM +0300, Abel Gordon wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, so then you prefer to add the inline functions to read/write to the
> > > vmcs12
> > > fields, (to set the request bit if shadowed field changed) and you are
> not
> > > concerned
> > > about any merge/rebase mess. I will work on this direction.
> > > I'll first send an independent patch to introduce the accessors. Once
> you
> > > apply this patch, I'll continue and send you v2 patches for shadow
> vmcs.
> > >
> > > Do you agree ?
> > Yes.
>
> Looking again at the code it seems like we could avoid adding the
> accessors.
> We could just set a flag in nested_vmx_vmexit and
> nested_vmx_entry_failure. Then, in vmx_vcpu_run we check/reset the flag and
> call copy_vmcs12_to_shadow (if required).
>
> What do you think ?
Good idea! With accessors we can do further optimization by copying only
things that changed, but it will be premature optimization at this
point.
--
Gleb.
--
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
