From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] exec, memory: Call to xen_modified_memory. Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:50:11 +0300 Message-ID: <5007F473.8070301__28753.0064270415$1342698733$gmane$org@redhat.com> References: <1342531805-29894-1-git-send-email-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <1342531805-29894-4-git-send-email-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <50056AA1.9010004@redhat.com> <50056FAB.8030404@citrix.com> <50057A5E.1070602@redhat.com> <5007F25E.4020502@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5007F25E.4020502@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Anthony PERARD Cc: Luiz Capitulino , Anthony Liguori , Xen Devel , QEMU-devel , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/19/2012 02:41 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On 17/07/12 19:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> How about pushing the call into cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_flags()? >>> Would that reduce the number of call sites? >> >> Pushing the calls to cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_flags and >> cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_range would make the code much nicer. >> However being these functions in exec-obsolete.h, are they at risk of >> removal? > > I thought about it, but when I saw that set_dirty were called only when > it was not already set as dirty where the call seams to be necessary. > > I just try to call xen_modified_mem only within > cpu_phy_mem_set_dirty_flags but it does not work, even when I tried to > clear the dirtybits. But I maybe don't do the right thing yet to clear > the dirty bits You can wrap the if (not dirty) make_it_dirty() sequence in a helper, and insert your hypercall in the helper, unconditionally. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function