On 12/07/2011 11:06 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011, Orit Wasserman wrote about "Re: [PATCH 02/10] nEPT: MMU > context for nested EPT": > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h > > @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ > > #define PFERR_RSVD_MASK (1U << 3) > > #define PFERR_FETCH_MASK (1U << 4) > > > > +#define EPT_WRITABLE_MASK 2 > > +#define EPT_EXEC_MASK 4 > > This is another example of the "unclean" movement of VMX-specific things into > x86 :( We already have VMX_EPT_WRITABLE_MASK and friends in vmx.h. I'll > need to think what is less ugly: to move them to mmu.h, or to include vmx.h > in mmu.c, or perhaps even create a new include file, ept.h. Avi, do you have > a preference?
Include vmx.h in mmu.c. vmx.h is neutral wrt guestiness/hostiness, so it can be included from mmu.c and vmx.c without issues. > The last thing I want to do is to repeat the same definitions in two places. Right. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
