On 07/16/2018 01:43 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.07.2018 10:37, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> This is a non-functional change that avoids
>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c:839:25: warning: context imbalance in 'do_vsie_run' - unexpected unlock
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> index 5dd9f7dc5b28..63844b95c22c 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> @@ -823,6 +823,8 @@ static int handle_stfle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>> * - < 0 if an error occurred
>> */
>> static int do_vsie_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>> + __releases(vcpu->kvm->srcu)
>> + __acquires(vcpu->kvm->srcu)
>> {
>> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_s = &vsie_page->scb_s;
>> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_o = vsie_page->scb_o;
>>
>
> Why isn't the same needed in __vcpu_run() ?
Because it first takes the lock. sparse complains if the first action is to release the lock.
--
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
