On 07/27/2010 06:33 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Introduce spte_bits_lost() function to judge whether spte bits will
miss, it's more readable and can help us to cleanup code later
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index e10f2bd..dd6c192 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -303,6 +303,20 @@ static u64 __xchg_spte(u64 *sptep, u64 new_spte)
#endif
}
+static bool spte_bits_lost(u64 spte)
+{
+ if (!shadow_accessed_mask)
+ return false;
+
+ if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
+ return false;
+
+ if (spte& shadow_accessed_mask)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
IMO spte_has_volatile_bits() is a clearer name, "lost" implies they are
already gone.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
