From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752250AbdEDHGd (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2017 03:06:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32902 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750941AbdEDHGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2017 03:06:25 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 720797D4E8 Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 720797D4E8 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: MMU: fast write protect To: Xiao Guangrong , mtosatti@redhat.com, avi.kivity@gmail.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com References: <20170503105224.19049-1-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> <878cbc47-316c-d508-a5a3-22029dee2203@redhat.com> <9af959d5-23c2-abd4-6100-577755239d2f@gmail.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Xiao Guangrong From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <71ca0408-4ec3-938c-2899-a4aa02ed3ab5@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 09:06:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9af959d5-23c2-abd4-6100-577755239d2f@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Thu, 04 May 2017 07:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/05/2017 05:36, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > Great. > > As there is no conflict between these two patchsets except dirty > ring pages takes benefit from write-protect-all, i think they > can be developed and iterated independently, right? I can certainly start reviewing this one. Paolo > Or you prefer to merge dirty ring pages first then review the > new version of this patchset later? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60828) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6AqL-0005Bk-5Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2017 03:06:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6AqI-0006PN-2Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2017 03:06:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35386) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6AqH-0006PA-SL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2017 03:06:26 -0400 References: <20170503105224.19049-1-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> <878cbc47-316c-d508-a5a3-22029dee2203@redhat.com> <9af959d5-23c2-abd4-6100-577755239d2f@gmail.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <71ca0408-4ec3-938c-2899-a4aa02ed3ab5@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 09:06:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9af959d5-23c2-abd4-6100-577755239d2f@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: MMU: fast write protect List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Xiao Guangrong , mtosatti@redhat.com, avi.kivity@gmail.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Xiao Guangrong On 04/05/2017 05:36, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > Great. > > As there is no conflict between these two patchsets except dirty > ring pages takes benefit from write-protect-all, i think they > can be developed and iterated independently, right? I can certainly start reviewing this one. Paolo > Or you prefer to merge dirty ring pages first then review the > new version of this patchset later?