[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy0BVqagYTTnaG2hwsxxM51ZZ2QpJbZtQ21v__8UaXCOWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:42:03 +0530
From: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Radim K <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] RISC-V: KVM: Handle WFI exits for VCPU
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote:
> > + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) {
>
> This can be kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable instead, since kvm_vcpu_block will
> check it anyway before sleeping.
I think we can skip this check here because kvm_vcpu_block() is
checking it anyway. Agree ??
Regards,
Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists