On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > Fair parts of the present handlers are identical; in fact > nestedp2m_write_p2m_entry() lacks a call to p2m_entry_modify(). Move > common parts right into write_p2m_entry(), splitting the hooks into a > "pre" one (needed just by shadow code) and a "post" one. > > For the common parts moved I think that the p2m_flush_nestedp2m() is, > at least from an abstract perspective, also applicable in the shadow > case. Hence it doesn't get a 3rd hook put in place. > > The initial comment that was in hap_write_p2m_entry() gets dropped: Its > placement was bogus, and looking back the the commit introducing it > (dd6de3ab9985 "Implement Nested-on-Nested") I can't see either what use > of a p2m it was meant to be associated with. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> Thanks, Roger.
