On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:07:31PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:55:11AM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 07:17:06PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 08:12:56PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:06:30PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > VCPU requests that the receiver should handle should only be cleared > > > > > by the receiver. > > > > > > > > I cannot parse this sentence. > > > > > > I'll try again: > > > > > > VCPU requests should only be cleared by the receiving VCPUs. The only > > > exception is when a request is set as a side-effect. In these cases > > > the "requester" threads may clear the requests when it is sure the > > > receiving VCPUs do not need to see them. > > > > > > > I can parse this, and I mostly understand this, except for the part > > about side-effects. > > E.g. kvm_vcpu_block(). This case isn't perfect, because the requester is > also the receiver, but the protocol applies to self-requests too, so it > still counts. Here KVM_REQ_UNHALT may be set as a side-effect of the call, > but on exit from the call, the caller may be sure that the receiver > (itself) doesn't care about the request, and thus can just clear it. > I see. You could mention this as an example if you like. Thanks, -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
