On 31/03/21 23:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On a related topic, any preference on whether to have an explicit "must_lock" flag (what I posted), or derive the logic based on other params? The helper I posted does: if (range->must_lock && kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked)) goto out_unlock; but it could be: if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock) && !range->may_block && kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked)) goto out_unlock; The generated code should be nearly identical on a modern compiler, so it's purely a question of aesthetics. I slightly prefer the explicit "must_lock" to avoid spreading out the logic too much, but it also feels a bit superfluous.
I do as well, but I hope we don't need any lock after all as in the email I've just sent.
Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
