On 2012-06-25 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/25/2012 01:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-06-25 12:15, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2012-06-25 10:57, Avi Kivity wrote: >>>> The repetitiveness of this code suggests a different way of doing this: >>>> make every API call be its own subtransaction and perform the flush in >>>> memory_region_begin_transaction() (maybe that's the answer to my >>>> question above). >>> >>> So you want me to wrap the core of those services in >>> begin/commit_transaction instead? Just to be sure I got the idea. >> >> What we would lose this way (transaction_commit) is the ability to skip >> updates on !mr->enabled. > > We could have an internal memory_region_begin_transaction_mr() which > checks mr->enabled and notes it if its clear (but anything else would > have to undo this). I don't think it's worth it, let's lose the > optimization and see if it shows up anywhere. OK, will send a new series with a conversion of this included. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
