Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I am tempted to remove the FNAME version altogether and change >> is_present_gpte() >> to return (pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK) || (shadow_xonly_valid && (pte & 4)). This >> will take care of all cases. Hope I am not missing something :) > > Please rename the non-FNAME version to pae_is_present_pdpte or just inline > it in the two callers. I am still not sure why the FNAME version is needed, specifically the PTTYPE_EPT specific check. Why can't we just check for execonly and the corresponding bit in the non FNAME version ? > Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
