On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 06:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> > --- > target/i386/hvf/hvf.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c > index c0b2352b988..1e92e9b707b 100644 > --- a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c > +++ b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c > @@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ static bool ept_emulation_fault(hvf_slot *slot, uint64_t > gpa, uint64_t ept_qual) > if (slot->flags & HVF_SLOT_LOG) { > uint64_t dirty_page_start = gpa & qemu_real_host_page_mask(); > memory_region_set_dirty(slot->region, gpa - slot->start, 1); > - hv_vm_protect(dirty_page_start, qemu_real_host_page_size(), > - HV_MEMORY_READ | HV_MEMORY_WRITE | HV_MEMORY_EXEC); > + hvf_unprotect_dirty_range(dirty_page_start, > + qemu_real_host_page_size()); > } > }
Subject says hvf_unprotect_page, code uses hvf_unprotect_dirty_range. I assume we can just fix the Subject. -- PMM
