From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: MMU: don't mark pte notrap if it's just sync
 transient
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:14:20 -0300
Message-ID: <20100611201420.GD12317@amt.cnet>
References: <4C1239EE.3090904@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <4C123ABA.3000601@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C123ABA.3000601@cn.fujitsu.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:31:38PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> If the sync-sp just sync transient, don't mark its pte notrap
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |    2 +-
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c              |   11 ++++-------
>  arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h      |    5 +++--
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Xiao,

Can you explain the reasoning for this?