On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:59 -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> @@ -2686,13 +2688,13 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct
> kvm_vcpu *v)
> * If the host uses TSC clock, then passthrough TSC as stable
> * to the guest.
> */
> - spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock, flags);
> use_master_clock = ka->use_master_clock;
> if (use_master_clock) {
> host_tsc = ka->master_cycle_now;
> kernel_ns = ka->master_kernel_ns;
> }
> - spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock, flags);
>
> /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
> local_irq_save(flags);
That seems a little gratuitous at the end; restoring the flags as part
of the spin_unlock_irqrestore() and then immediately calling
local_irq_save().
Is something going to complain if we just use spin_unlock() there and
then later restore the flags with the existing local_irq_restore()?
Or should we move the local_irq_save() up above the existing
spin_lock() and leave the spin lock/unlock as they are?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
