2016-05-19 19:56 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 05/19/2016 01:48 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-05-19 19:42 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 05/19/2016 01:35 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>> 2016-05-19 19:23 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On 05/19/2016 11:26 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think in general a good idea to poll if a timer will expire soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some patch comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for all non-x86 archs:
>>>>>> +static inline unsigned int kvm_arch_timer_remaining(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> A function returning int, without a return statement?
>>>>> That gives at least a compiler warning.
>>>>
>>>> How about return 0 for all non-x86 archs?
>>>
>>> We will provide an s390 implementation soon, but until then a proper
>>> default would be good.
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>>>> + if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns || (remaining < halt_poll_ns_base)) {
>>>
>>> but then remaining is 0 and the 2nd condition will always be true, no?
>>
>> Nice catch!
>>
>> How about something like below:
>>
>> + if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns ||
>> + (remaining != 0 && remaining < halt_poll_ns_base)) {
>
> Maybe just use -1UL to have a "will never expire" and change the return value into u64
> while changing that.
Good idea, I will do it in next version.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
