On 16.07.2018 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 07/16/2018 01:43 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.07.2018 10:37, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> This is a non-functional change that avoids
>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c:839:25: warning: context imbalance in 'do_vsie_run' - unexpected unlock
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> index 5dd9f7dc5b28..63844b95c22c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> @@ -823,6 +823,8 @@ static int handle_stfle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>> * - < 0 if an error occurred
>>> */
>>> static int do_vsie_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>> + __releases(vcpu->kvm->srcu)
>>> + __acquires(vcpu->kvm->srcu)
>>> {
>>> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_s = &vsie_page->scb_s;
>>> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_o = vsie_page->scb_o;
>>>
>>
>> Why isn't the same needed in __vcpu_run() ?
>
> Because it first takes the lock. sparse complains if the first action is to release the lock.
>
Indeed, I ignored the first lock outside of the loop.
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
