On 05.07.2017 14:24, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/2017 14:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> index f0fe9d02f6bb..09368501d9cf 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> @@ -187,12 +187,23 @@ static void ack_flush(void *_completed)
>>> {
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline bool kvm_kick_many_cpus(const struct cpumask *cpus, bool wait)
>>> +{
>>> + if (unlikely(!cpus))
>>> + cpus = cpu_online_mask;
>>> +
>>> + if (cpumask_empty(cpus))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
>>> + return true;
>>> +}
>>
>> wonder if the !cpus case would be worth moving into smp_call_function_many.
>>
>> smp_call_function_many() might also not kick any cpu, so we could make
>> it return if it actually kicked/called this on any cpu. Then you could
>> even get rid of the special handling of cpumask_empty(cpus) here and
>> simply return the result of smp_call_function_many.
>
> Separate patch of course. :)
Sure, for now take my
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
:)
>>
>> Is the !! really needed here? I think not.
>
> I prefer having it. There are corner cases (e.g. isolating bit 32 or
> higher and the function accepting an unsigned int instead of a bool)
> where it can save your butt, and it's idiomatic C.
Ah, I remember again why using booleans was once considered bad :)
Makes sense.
>
> Paolo
--
Thanks,
David