On 01/13/2010 04:26 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
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;}.
A break should suffice. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
