On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:31:55 +0100 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > After the vcpu_load/vcpu_put pushdown, the handling of asynchronous VCPU > ioctl is already much clearer in that it is obvious that they bypass > vcpu_load and vcpu_put. > > However, it is still not perfect in that the different state of the VCPU > mutex is still hidden in the caller. Separate those ioctls into a new > function kvm_arch_vcpu_async_ioctl that returns -ENOIOCTLCMD for more > "traditional" synchronous ioctls. > > Cc: James Hogan <jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 8 ++++---- > 5 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Another vote for a dummy function here, but otherwise Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
