On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:32:22AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:34:52PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > Why? [1] > > > From: "Cao, Lei" <Lei.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Cao, Lei <Lei.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > index fac0760c870e..8f8940cc4b84 100644 > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > @@ -145,7 +145,10 @@ static void hardware_disable_all(void); > > > > static void kvm_io_bus_destroy(struct kvm_io_bus *bus); > > > > -static void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, gfn_t gfn); > > +static void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm *kvm, > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > + struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, > > + gfn_t gfn); > > Why both? Passing @vcpu gets you @kvm. You are right on that I should fill in something at [1].. Because @vcpu can be NULL (if you continue to read this patch, you'll see sometimes NULL is passed in), and we at least need a context to mark the dirty ring. That's also why we need a per-vm dirty ring to be the fallback of the cases where we don't have vcpu context. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
