2016-04-06 10:21+0800, rhett rhett:
> 8499907b52c9cebf3c1a4aaa63b84bd9c3c1ff3d
> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index 01bd7b7..e831032 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -807,7 +807,6 @@ static int kvm_hv_set_msr_pw(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
> msr, u64 data,
> gfn << HV_X64_MSR_TSC_REFERENCE_ADDRESS_SHIFT,
> &tsc_ref, sizeof(tsc_ref)))
> return 1;
> - mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn);
> break;
> }
> case HV_X64_MSR_CRASH_P0 ... HV_X64_MSR_CRASH_P4:
>
>
> i think the mark_page_dirty is unnecessary, because the page had been mark
> as dirty inside the
> kvm_write_guest routinue.
Yes, good catch.
> so , can this patch be accepted ?
An acceptable patch needs to follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches,
would you like to make the submission?