On 12/10/2017 23:17, Peng Hao wrote:
> update_accessed_dirty_bits return 0 when dirty/accessed bits are
> not supported. So walk_addr_generic just call update_accessed_dirty_bits
> with supporting dirty/accessed bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.h...@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> index 86b68dc..b40f23e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ static int FNAME(walk_addr_generic)(struct guest_walker
> *walker,
> accessed_dirty &= pte >>
> (PT_GUEST_DIRTY_SHIFT - PT_GUEST_ACCESSED_SHIFT);
>
> - if (unlikely(!accessed_dirty)) {
> + if (unlikely(!accessed_dirty && have_ad)) {
> ret = FNAME(update_accessed_dirty_bits)(vcpu, mmu, walker,
> write_fault);
> if (unlikely(ret < 0))
> goto error;
>
At least you would have to remove the corresponding conditional in
update_accessed_dirty_bits, or change it to a WARN.
But I don't see the point really... why is it _better_ to check in
walk_addr_generic instead of update_accessed_dirty_bits?
Paolo
