Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, it's the better name, will fix soon.
--
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
