On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:28:43PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.
>
It will still be {ret=val; break;}. 3 lines instead of one.
--
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
