Re: [PATCH 04/10] nEPT: Fix page table format in nested EPT

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 11/10/2011 02:21 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 01:03 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 04/10] nEPT: Fix page table format in nested EPT":
> > > > @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct kvm_mmu {
> > > >  	bool nx;
> > > >  
> > > >  	u64 pdptrs[4]; /* pae */
> > > > +	u64 link_shadow_page_set_bits;
> > >...
> > > > +static void link_shadow_page(u64 *sptep, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, u64 set_bits)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	u64 spte;
> > > > -
> > > > -	spte = __pa(sp->spt)
> > > > -		| PT_PRESENT_MASK | PT_ACCESSED_MASK
> > > > -		| PT_WRITABLE_MASK | PT_USER_MASK;
> > > > -	mmu_spte_set(sptep, spte);
> > > > +	mmu_spte_set(sptep, __pa(sp->spt) | set_bits);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Minor nit: you can just use link_shadow_page_set_bits here instead of
> > > passing it around (unless later you have a different value for the
> > > parameter?)
> >
> > The problem was that link_shadow_page did not take an kvm_mmu parameter,
> > so I don't know where to find this link_shadow_page_set_bits. So either
> > I pass the pointer to the entire kvm_mmu to link_shadow_page, or I just
> > pass the only field which I need... I thought that passing the single
> > field I need was cleaner - but I can easily change it if you prefer to
> > pass the kvm_mmu.
>
> Ah, doesn't matter either way.
>

On second thoughts, passing the mmu is better for future maintainability.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function