On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/11/19 09:49, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> > +static int is_spp_shadow_present(u64 pte)
> > +{
> > + return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK;
> > +}
> > +
>
> This should not be needed, is_shadow_present_pte works well for SPP PTEs
> as well (and in fact you're already using it here and there, so it's
> confusing to have both).
>
OK, will remove it.
> Paolo
