From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xiao Guangrong Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: MMU: fully check zero bits for sptes Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:53:29 +0800 Message-ID: <55C2CC29.30402@linux.intel.com> References: <1438747467-25425-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> <1438747467-25425-9-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> <55C1E1A3.4020300@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 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: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55C1E1A3.4020300@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 08/05/2015 06:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > 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? Your adjustment is good to me, i do not have other ideas... :)