On Mon, Sep 06, 2021, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 05:33:35 +0100, > Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 03.09.21 16:41, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > > At this stage, I really wonder why we are not using an xarray instead. > > > > > > I wrote this [1] a while ago, and nothing caught fire. It was also a > > > net deletion of code... > > > > Indeed, I'd prefer that solution! > > > > Are you fine with me swapping my patch with yours in the series? > > Of course, feel free to grab the whole series. You'll probably need > the initial patches to set the scene for this. On their own, they are > a nice cleanup, and I trust you can write a decent commit message for > the three patches affecting mips/s390/x86. It would also be a good idea to convert kvm_for_each_vcpu() to use xa_for_each(), I assume that's more performant than 2x atomic_read() + xa_load(). Unless I'm misreading the code, xa_for_each() is guaranteed to iterate in ascending index order, i.e. preserves the current vcpu0..vcpuN iteration order.
