On 06/20/2012 05:02 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:57:15 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Introduce a common function to abstract spte write-protect to
>> cleanup the code
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
>> +/* Return true if the spte is dropped. */
>> +static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush)
>> +{
>> + u64 spte = *sptep;
>> +
>> + if (!is_writable_pte(spte))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -3902,16 +3915,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm, int slot)
>> !is_last_spte(pt[i], sp->role.level))
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (is_large_pte(pt[i])) {
>> - drop_spte(kvm, &pt[i]);
>> - --kvm->stat.lpages;
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> -
>> - /* avoid RMW */
>> - if (is_writable_pte(pt[i]))
>> - mmu_spte_update(&pt[i],
>> - pt[i] & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK);
>> + spte_write_protect(kvm, &pt[i], &flush);
>
> Adding rmap_printk() here seems wrong.
>
Strange! Why do you think it is wrong? It is just debug code.
> If you think it is not a problem, please explain why you think so in
> the changelog.
It is a from the first place and it is used to debug and not compiled at all.
--
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
