Hi Thomas, On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:30:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17 2024 at 11:01, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:39:42 -0700, Sean Christopherson > > <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c > >> > b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c index af662312fd07..592dbb765675 > >> > 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c > >> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c > >> > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ void vmx_vcpu_pi_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int > >> > cpu) > >> > * handle task migration (@cpu != vcpu->cpu). > >> > */ > >> > new.ndst = dest; > >> > - new.sn = 0; > >> > + new.notif_ctrl &= ~POSTED_INTR_SN; > >> > >> At the risk of creating confusing, would it make sense to add > >> double-underscore, non-atomic versions of the set/clear helpers for ON > >> and SN? > >> > >> I can't tell if that's a net positive versus open coding clear() and > >> set() here and below. > > IMHO, we can add non-atomic helpers when we have more than one user for > > each operation. > > > > I do have a stupid bug here, it should be: > > - new.notif_ctrl &= ~POSTED_INTR_SN; > > + new.notif_ctrl &= ~BIT(POSTED_INTR_SN); > > That's a perfect reason to use a proper helper. I just proved I was wrong:) will do. Thanks, Jacob
