On Sat, Dec 09, 2023, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 30.10.23 г. 18:07 ч., Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > > Current separation between (__){0,1}kvm_x86_vendor_init() is
> > > superfluos as
> >
> > superfluous
> >
> > But this intro is actively misleading. The double-underscore variant
> > most definitely
> > isn't superfluous, e.g. it eliminates the need for gotos reduces the
> > probability
> > of incorrect error codes, bugs in the error handling, etc. It _becomes_
> > superflous
> > after switching to guard(mutex).
> >
> > IMO, this is one of the instances where the then solution problem
> > appoach is
> > counter-productive. If there are no objections, I'll massage the change
> > log to
> > the below when applying (for 6.8, in a few weeks).
> >
> > Use the recently introduced guard(mutex) infrastructure acquire and
> > automatically release vendor_module_lock when the guard goes out of
> > scope.
> > Drop the inner __kvm_x86_vendor_init(), its sole purpose was to simplify
> > releasing vendor_module_lock in error paths.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > > the the underscore version doesn't have any other callers.
> > >
>
>
> Has this fallen through the cracks as I don't see it in 6.7?
As above, I have this tagged for inclusion in 6.8, not 6.7. Though admittedly,
this one did actually fall through the cracks as I moved it to the wrong mailbox
when Paolo usurped the thread for unrelated guest_memfd stuff. Anyways, I do
plan on grabbing this for 6.8, I'm just buried in non-upstream stuff right now.
