On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:29:52PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >> v2->v3: >> introduce kvmppc_hv_unlock_hpte() to pair with kvmppc_hv_find_lock_hpte() >> and hide the preemption detail inside this pair from the callers > > Actually, I preferred v2. This version seems a bit over-engineered. > > Making a kvmppc_hv_unlock_hpte() is not such a bad idea, though I > would make it identical to the existing unlock_hpte() from Do you think it is helpful to distingusish HPTE_V_LOCK from HPTE_V_HVLOCK at an API level? If it is, I will keep patch 1/2 and just fix patch 2/2 . > book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c, just in a header. I'm really not convinced about > putting the preempt_disable/enable inside the lock/unlock functions, > with the consequent need to pass in a 'vmode' parameter, given that > there is just one caller that needs to do the preempt_disable/enable. > Ok, will fix patch 2/2 Thanks and regards, Pingfan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
