On 11/12/2015 07:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Every time kvm_mmu_get_page() is called with a non-NULL parent_pte
argument, link_shadow_page() follows that to set the parent entry so
that the new mapping will point to the returned page table.
Moving parent_pte handling there allows to clean
On 13/11/2015 03:15, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Actually, I don't understand why this is named kvm_mmu_put_page() for
> just removing parent_pte pointer from the sp->parent_ptes pointer chain.
Because it undoes kvm_mmu_get_page, I guess. :)
>
>> On to kvm_mmu_get_page...
>>
>> if
Every time kvm_mmu_get_page() is called with a non-NULL parent_pte
argument, link_shadow_page() follows that to set the parent entry so
that the new mapping will point to the returned page table.
Moving parent_pte handling there allows to clean up the code because
parent_pte is passed to
On 12/11/2015 12:56, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> index 9d21b44..f414ca6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static int FNAME(fetch)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t
On 2015/11/12 23:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 12/11/2015 12:56, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
index 9d21b44..f414ca6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
@@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static int
On 12/11/2015 15:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Here I think you can remove completely the
>
> if (sp)
> kvm_mmu_put_page(sp, it.sptep);
>
> later in FNAME(fetch). Apart from this nit, it's okay.
Removing this is of course not possible anymore if the other suggestion
works
