[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d947359d-0eb8-1e6f-ef53-54bcec0410c7@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 10:51:15 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"rkagan@...tuozzo.com" <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
"graf@...zon.com" <graf@...zon.com>,
"jschoenh@...zon.de" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
"karahmed@...zon.de" <karahmed@...zon.de>,
"rimasluk@...zon.com" <rimasluk@...zon.com>,
"Grimm, Jon" <Jon.Grimm@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/17] kvm: x86: Introduce APICv deactivate bits
On 01/11/19 23:41, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> + unsigned long apicv_deact_msk;
No abbrev fld names. :) I can change this to something like
apicv_inhibit_reasons if there are no other issues (and likewise
s/APICV_DEACT_BIT_/APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_/).
>
> +bool kvm_apicv_activated(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> + return (READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.apicv_deact_msk) == 0);
> +}
Using READ_ONCE introduces a risk of races. I'll check during a more
thorough review if it's worth introducing separate kvm_apicv_active and
kvm_apicv_active_nolock functions.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists