From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not call gva_to_gpa on physical address Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:55:45 +0300 Message-ID: <4C3DDE01.9020705@redhat.com> References: <20100714153858.GI4689@redhat.com> <4C3DDB4F.3050208@redhat.com> <20100714155252.GJ4689@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2664 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751156Ab0GNPzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:55:49 -0400 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6EFtnx2022039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:55:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100714155252.GJ4689@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/14/2010 06:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> Why not >> >> if (tdp_enabled) >> return false; >> >> at the top? Is there any reason ever to reexecute an instruction >> with tdp enabled? >> >> > Can't think of one now. If in the future we will shadow some other data > structures in the guest except page tables (nested vmx/svm?) there may > be the reason. > Sure, we'll adjust it then. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.