Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 12/04/2013 01:48:04 PM: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:44:14PM +0300, Abel Gordon wrote: > > > > Ok, so then you prefer to add the inline functions to read/write to the > > vmcs12 > > fields, (to set the request bit if shadowed field changed) and you are not > > concerned > > about any merge/rebase mess. I will work on this direction. > > I'll first send an independent patch to introduce the accessors. Once you > > apply this patch, I'll continue and send you v2 patches for shadow vmcs. > > > > Do you agree ? > Yes. Looking again at the code it seems like we could avoid adding the accessors. We could just set a flag in nested_vmx_vmexit and nested_vmx_entry_failure. Then, in vmx_vcpu_run we check/reset the flag and call copy_vmcs12_to_shadow (if required). What do you think ? -- 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
