2016-10-24 16:39+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 19/10/2016 19:24, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> > + if (vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_MSR_ENABLED)
>>> > + if (kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime,
>>> > + &vcpu->arch.st.steal,
>>> > + sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time)) == 0) {
>>> > + vcpu->arch.st.steal.preempted = 1;
>>> > + kvm_write_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime,
>>> > + &vcpu->arch.st.steal,
>>> > + sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time));
>>> > + }
>> Please name this block of code. Something like
>> kvm_steal_time_set_preempted(vcpu);
>
> While at it:
>
> 1) the kvm_read_guest_cached is not necessary. You can rig the call to
> kvm_write_guest_cached so that it only writes vcpu->arch.st.steal.preempted.
I agree. kvm_write_guest_cached() always writes from offset 0, so we'd
want a new function that allows to specify a starting offset.
Using cached vcpu->arch.st.steal to avoid the read wouldn't be as good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
