From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Xiao Guangrong)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:33 +0800
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v7 3/4] arm: dirty log write protect management
 support
In-Reply-To: <5390C04F.6060201@samsung.com>
References: <1401916278-24835-1-git-send-email-m.smarduch@samsung.com>
 <5390146F.8020407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5390C04F.6060201@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <53915721.9090006@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 06/06/2014 03:09 AM, Mario Smarduch wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 11:55 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 06/05/2014 05:11 AM, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>
>>> +	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> +
>>> +	for (i = 0; i < n / sizeof(long); i++) {
>>> +		unsigned long mask;
>>> +		gfn_t offset;
>>> +
>>> +		if (!dirty_bitmap[i])
>>> +			continue;
>>> +
>>> +		is_dirty = true;
>>> +
>>> +		mask = xchg(&dirty_bitmap[i], 0);
>>> +		dirty_bitmap_buffer[i] = mask;
>>> +
>>> +		offset = i * BITS_PER_LONG;
>>> +		kvm_mmu_write_protect_pt_masked(kvm, memslot, offset, mask);
>>> +	}
>>> +	if (is_dirty)
>>> +		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
>>
>> You moved the flush into mmu-lock. Please do not :).
>>
>> See commit 198c74f43f0f5473f99967aead30ddc622804bc1
>>
> 
> Thanks for reviewing, I revised to pick up your version.
> 
> Functionally there should be no impact on ARM, the
> TLB flush function is different.

Yeah, i agree your point on ARM, but your patch moved
the function from x86 to the common code, that means
this function is reused between ARM and x86. No?