Il 26/08/2014 13:59, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> This patch is more of a cleanup - making clear whats going on. Its not needed
> for something special.
>
> It does two things:
> - encapsulate the TLB flushing - Yes, a function hiding that would also work.
> We decided to reuse an existin
On 26/08/14 13:40, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/08/2014 10:28, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
>> 2. We use KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH instead of open coding tlb flushes
>
> Why is this needed? It seems slower than what you are replacing.
>
> Supporting KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH is useful (the first hunk of th
Il 26/08/2014 10:28, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> 2. We use KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH instead of open coding tlb flushes
Why is this needed? It seems slower than what you are replacing.
Supporting KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH is useful (the first hunk of the patch);
hiding the control block manipulation beh
