[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANgfPd9OTKUJfnuRtMguC7kBf1GZz5Ba0yT1ssX29YQ2Zm54aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:31:06 -0800
From: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 24/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow zap gfn range to operate
under the mmu read lock
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:26 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/02/21 19:57, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > + if (shared)
> > + lockdep_assert_held_read(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > + else
> > + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_LOCKDEP */
>
> Also, there's no need for the #ifdef here.
I agree, I must have misinterpreted some feedback on a previous commit
and gone overboard with it.
> Do we want a helper
> kvm_lockdep_assert_mmu_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm, bool shared)?
There are only two places that try to assert both ways as far as I can
see on a cursory check, but it couldn't hurt.
>
> Paolo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists