public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write_protect
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:14:55 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120416231455.f978b3ac9fb995cfce2853ae@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F8AB02A.9020601@redhat.com>

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:25:30 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > @@ -1689,7 +1690,7 @@ static void mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > 
> > >  	kvm_mmu_pages_init(parent, &parents, &pages);
> > >  	while (mmu_unsync_walk(parent, &pages)) {
> > > -		int protected = 0;
> > > +		bool protected = false;
> > > 
> > >  		for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
> > >  			protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu->kvm, sp->gfn);
> >
> > Isn't this the reason we prefer int to bool?
> >
> > Not sure people like to use |= with boolean.
> >
> 
> Why not?
> 

The code "bitwise OR assignment" is assuming the internal representations
of true and false: true=1, false=0.

I might have seen some point if it had been
	protected = protected || rmap_...


But the real question is whether there is any point in re-writing completely
correct C code: there are tons of int like this in the kernel code.

__rmap_write_protect() was introduced recently, so if this conversion is
really worthwhile, I should have been told to use bool at that time, no?


Thanks,
	Takuya

  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-16 14:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-13 10:05 [PATCH v2 00/16] KVM: MMU: fast page fault Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:09 ` [PATCH v2 01/16] KVM: MMU: cleanup __direct_map Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:10 ` [PATCH v2 02/16] KVM: MMU: introduce mmu_spte_establish Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:10 ` [PATCH v2 03/16] KVM: MMU: properly assert spte on rmap walking path Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  2:15   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-16  3:26     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:11 ` [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write_protect Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  2:00   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-15 11:25     ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16 14:14       ` Takuya Yoshikawa [this message]
2012-04-16 14:28         ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16 15:54           ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-13 10:11 ` [PATCH v2 05/16] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  2:26   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-16  3:27     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:12 ` [PATCH v2 06/16] KVM: VMX: export PFEC.P bit on ept Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:12 ` [PATCH v2 07/16] KVM: MMU: introduce for_each_pte_list_spte Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  2:44   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-16  3:36     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-17 14:47       ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-18  4:01         ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-21  1:01           ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-21  4:36             ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-18 10:03         ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-21  1:03           ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-13 10:13 ` [PATCH v2 08/16] KVM: MMU: store more bits in rmap Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:13 ` [PATCH v2 09/16] KVM: MMU: fast mmu_need_write_protect path for hard mmu Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:14 ` [PATCH v2 10/16] KVM: MMU: fask check whether page is writable Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  3:01   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-16  3:38     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-15 15:16   ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16  3:25     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-16 10:02       ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16 10:20         ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-16 11:47           ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-17  3:55             ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-17  7:41               ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-17 12:10                 ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:14 ` [PATCH v2 11/16] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE bit Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:15 ` [PATCH v2 12/16] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_WRITE_PROTECT bit Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:15 ` [PATCH v2 13/16] KVM: MMU: break sptes write-protect if gfn is writable Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:16 ` [PATCH v2 14/16] KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-18  1:47   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-04-18  3:53     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-18 23:08       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-04-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 15/16] KVM: MMU: trace fast " Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 16/16] KVM: MMU: fix kvm_mmu_pagetable_walk tracepoint Xiao Guangrong
2012-04-14  3:37 ` [PATCH v2 00/16] KVM: MMU: fast page fault Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-04-16  3:50   ` Xiao Guangrong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120416231455.f978b3ac9fb995cfce2853ae@gmail.com \
    --to=takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox