On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Liran Alon wrote:
> > On 13 Oct 2018, at 17:53, lantianyu1986@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > From: Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch is to add wrapper functions for tlb_remote_flush_with_range
> > callback.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Change sicne V3:
> > Remove code of updating "tlbs_dirty"
> > Change since V2:
> > Fix comment in the kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range()
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > index c73d9f650de7..ff656d85903a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -264,6 +264,46 @@ static void mmu_spte_set(u64 *sptep, u64 spte);
> > static union kvm_mmu_page_role
> > kvm_mmu_calc_root_page_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >
> > +
> > +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void)
> > +{
> > + return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range;
> > +}
>
> Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch…
What's wrong with that?
It provides the implementation and later patches make use of it. It's a
sensible way to split patches into small, self contained entities.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
