>>> On 08.07.16 at 13:39, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 7/6/2016 6:49 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: >> Minor optimization @ vmx_update_guest_cr: checks if > v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control >> was modified before actually calling vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v). >> >> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com> >> --- >> Changed since v2: <nothing> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> index df19579..8ab074f 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> @@ -1434,8 +1434,10 @@ static void vmx_update_guest_cr(struct vcpu *v, > unsigned int cr) >> if ( paging_mode_hap(v->domain) ) >> { >> /* Manage GUEST_CR3 when CR0.PE=0. */ >> + uint32_t old_ctls = v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control; >> uint32_t cr3_ctls = (CPU_BASED_CR3_LOAD_EXITING | >> CPU_BASED_CR3_STORE_EXITING); >> + >> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control &= ~cr3_ctls; >> if ( !hvm_paging_enabled(v) && !vmx_unrestricted_guest(v) ) >> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control |= cr3_ctls; >> @@ -1445,7 +1447,8 @@ static void vmx_update_guest_cr(struct vcpu *v, > unsigned int cr) >> monitor_ctrlreg_bitmask(VM_EVENT_X86_CR3) ) >> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control |= CPU_BASED_CR3_LOAD_EXITING; >> >> - vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v); >> + if ( old_ctls != v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control ) >> + vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v); >> } >> >> if ( !nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(v) ) > > I'm wondering if you could ack this as well (if there's nothing wrong w/ > it) and push it to be done with it. :-)
Well, if you had pinged the patch at least once, I probably would. I don't, however, recall having seen any such ping (only resends). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel