From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Move parent_pte handling from
 kvm_mmu_get_page() to link_shadow_page()
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:32:53 +0100
Message-ID: <5655E2B5.4030709@redhat.com>
References: <20151120174005.9880b89f54eee2cec2422da5@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20151120174805.a91793d1fce2f0a493f1b955@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <564EE08B.4040100@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mtosatti@redhat.com
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>,
	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <564EE08B.4040100@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



On 20/11/2015 09:57, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> 
> 
> You can move this patch to the front of
> [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of
> pte_list_walk()
> 
> By moving kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() to the behind of mmu_spte_set()
> (then the parent
> spte is present now), you can directly clean up for_each_rmap_spte().

So basically squash together the two patches (8/10 and 9/10) except the
change to kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync; then in the second patch switch
from pte_list_walk to for_each_rmap_spte.

That makes sense indeed.

Paolo