From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: MMU: fully check zero bits for sptes
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:12:51 +0200
Message-ID: <55C1E1A3.4020300@redhat.com>
References: <1438747467-25425-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
 <1438747467-25425-9-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ru.pchel@gmail.com
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1438747467-25425-9-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



On 05/08/2015 06:04, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> -	for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte)
> +	for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte) {
> +		leaf = iterator.level;
> +
> +		if (!root)
> +			root = leaf;
> +
> +		sptes[leaf - 1] = spte;
> +

I'm a bit undecided between this and open-coding the macro:

        for (shadow_walk_init(&iterator, vcpu, addr), root = iterator.level;
             shadow_walk_okay(&iterator);
             __shadow_walk_next(&iterator, spte)) {
                leaf = iterator.level;
                spte = mmu_spte_get_lockless(iterator.sptep);

Any second opinions?

Paolo