On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:11:31 +0800 Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/09/2013 02:46 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > > By making the last three statements common to both if/else cases, the > > symmetry between the locking and unlocking becomes clearer. One note > > here is that VCPU's root_hpa does not need to be protected by mmu_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > DO NOT think it makes any thing better. > Why do we need to do the same thing differently in two paths? Especially one path looks like protecting root_hpa while the other does not. This one may be a small issue, but these small issues make it difficult to see what mmu_lock is protecting. Takuya -- 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
