On 20/11/2015 09:47, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() alone uses pte_list_walk(), witch does
> nearly the same as the for_each_rmap_spte macro. The only difference
> is that is_shadow_present_pte() checks cannot be placed there because
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() can
You just ignored my comment on the previous version...
On 11/20/2015 04:47 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() alone uses pte_list_walk(), witch does
nearly the same as the for_each_rmap_spte macro. The only difference
is that is_shadow_present_pte() checks cannot be
On 2015/11/20 17:46, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
You just ignored my comment on the previous version...
I'm sorry but please read the explanation in patch 00.
I've read your comments and I'm not ignoring you.
Since this patch set has become huge than expected, I'm sending
this version so that
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() alone uses pte_list_walk(), witch does
nearly the same as the for_each_rmap_spte macro. The only difference
is that is_shadow_present_pte() checks cannot be placed there because
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() can be called with a new parent pointer
whose entry is not