Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754187AbdGCPri (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:47:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37194 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752759AbdGCPre (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:47:34 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1B0B061B9D Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 1B0B061B9D Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: MMU: fast write protect 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 References: <20170620091526.4287-1-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> <4dffc169-5cf2-8f37-bd99-9941bef50825@gmail.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <6db0c80d-2ae2-9e89-356e-35acd241fdc5@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 17:47:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4dffc169-5cf2-8f37-bd99-9941bef50825@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 537 Lines: 22 On 03/07/2017 16:39, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > On 06/20/2017 05:15 PM, guangrong.xiao@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Xiao Guangrong >> >> Changelog in v2: >> thanks to Paolo's review, this version disables write-protect-all if >> PML is supported > > Hi Paolo, > > Do you have time to have a look at this new version? ;) > Or I should wait until the patchset of dirty ring-buffer is merged? I will look at it soon, but I still plan to merge dirty ring buffer first. Thanks for your understanding, Paolo