From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: MMU: fask check write-protect for direct mmu
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:45:59 +0800
Message-ID: <5008D477.2020007@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <50056DB8.7080702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50056E59.4090003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120720003917.GA8951@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120720003917.GA8951@amt.cnet>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

BTW, they are some bug fix patches on -master branch, but
it is not existed on -next branch:
commit: f411930442e01f9cf1bf4df41ff7e89476575c4d
commit: 85b7059169e128c57a3a8a3e588fb89cb2031da1

It causes code conflict if we do the development on -next.

On 07/20/2012 08:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:can
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:29PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> If it have no indirect shadow pages we need not protect any gfn,
>> this is always true for direct mmu without nested
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Xiao,
> 
> What is the motivation? Numbers please.
> 
> In fact, what case was the original indirect_shadow_pages conditional in
> kvm_mmu_pte_write optimizing again?
> 
> 
>