On 2015/11/09 19:14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Can you also change kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync to use
for_each_rmap_spte instead of pte_list_walk? It is the last use of
pte_list_walk, and it's nice if we have two uses of for_each_rmap_spte
with parent_ptes as the argument.
No problem, I will do.
On 10/11/2015 10:05, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, on my todo list is to change the rmap items to a struct (with a
>> single u64 inside) for type safety. Since you are touching this code,
>> perhaps you can give it a shot?
>
> Yes, almost done here (assuming that you mean 'unsigned
On 06/11/2015 08:25, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> At some call sites of rmap_get_first() and rmap_get_next(), BUG_ON is
> placed right after the call to detect unrelated sptes which should not
> be found in the reverse-mapping list.
>
> Move this check in rmap_get_first/next() so that all call
At some call sites of rmap_get_first() and rmap_get_next(), BUG_ON is
placed right after the call to detect unrelated sptes which should not
be found in the reverse-mapping list.
Move this check in rmap_get_first/next() so that all call sites, not
just the users of the for_each_rmap_spte() macro,
