On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 23/04/20 10:41, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> > >> - if (swait_active(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu))) > >> + if (rcu_dereference(kvm_arch_vpu_get_wait(vcpu)) != NULL) > > This doesn't compile (wrong function name, and rcu_dereference takes a > > variable). But whatever it would do if we fixed it looks dodgy. it isn't > > the rcuwait structure that you want to dereference, but rcuwait->task > > (we are checking whether we are called because we are blocking or being > > preempted). > > > > Yes, I agree. Replacing swait with rcuwait is all good, but please make > the API look the same first. Just like you added prepare_to_rcuwait and > finish_rcuwait, let's add rcuwait_active as well. > > Actually let's do it like this: > > 1) Davidlohr, please post only patches 1-3 to "equalize" the swait and > rcuwait APIs. > > 2) Peter, please prepare a topic branch for those, or provide Acked-by I don't think I have anything that conflicts with this, so sure, take the whole thing through KVM. For 1-3 (and I'll send a small niggle for 3 right after this): Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> I'll keep 5 as it is unrelated. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
