Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
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

Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
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

Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Takuya Yoshikawa
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

Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Xiao Guangrong
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

[PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Takuya Yoshikawa
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

Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Xiao Guangrong
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

Re: [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Takuya Yoshikawa
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

[PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

2015-11-20 Thread Takuya Yoshikawa
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