>>> On 30.04.19 at 16:43, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/19 9:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 30.04.19 at 10:28, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> I've outlined a solution already: Make a mem-sharing private variant
>>>> of page_{,un}lock(), derived from the PV ones (but with pieces
>>>> dropped you don't want/need).
>>>
>>> Well, that's what I already did here in this patch. No?
>>
>> No - you've retained a shared _page_{,un}lock(), whereas my
>> suggestion was to have a completely independent pair of
>> functions in mem_sharing.c. The only thing needed by both PV
>> and HVM would then be the PGT_locked flag.
>
> But it wasn't obvious to me how the implementations of the actual lock
> function would be be different. And there's no point in having two
> identical implementations; in fact, it would be harmful.
The main difference would be the one that Tamas is after - not
doing the checking that we do for PV. Whether other bits could
be dropped for a mem-sharing special variant I don't know (yet).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
