On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:21:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data)
> > {
> > switch (msr) {
> >@@ -1117,6 +1181,16 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data)
> > pr_unimpl(vcpu, "unimplemented perfctr wrmsr: "
> > "0x%x data 0x%llx\n", msr, data);
> > break;
> >+ case HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID ... HV_X64_MSR_SINT15:
> >+ if (kvm_hv_msr_partition_wide(msr)) {
> >+ int r;
> >+ mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> >+ r = set_msr_hyperv_pw(vcpu, msr, data);
> >+ mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
>
> We do have locking. Any reason not to put it in set_msr_hyperv_pw?
> Seems cleaner.
>
Actually the way I did it looks cleaner to me. If locking is done inside
set_msr_hyperv_pw() then each simple "return" statement there will have
to be changed into {ret=val; goto unlock;}.
--
Gleb.
--
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
