[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR21MB15932DFEE4F0756419D58525D7689@MWHPR21MB1593.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 21:30:50 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
Matheus Castello <matheus@...tello.eng.br>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <liuwe@...rosoft.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>
CC: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] x86/Hyper-V: Support for free page reporting
From: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 2:21 PM
>
> > What's the strategy for this flag in the unlikely event that the hypercall fails?
> > It doesn't seem right to have hv_query_ext_cap() fail, but leave the
> > static flag set to true. Just move that line down to after the status check
> > has succeeded?
>
> That call should not fail in any normal circumstances. The current idea was to
> avoid repeating the same call on persistent failure.
OK, I can see that as a valid strategy. And the assumption is that a failed
hypercall would leave hv_extended_cap unmodified and hence all zeros.
I'm OK with this approach if you want to keep it. But perhaps add a short
comment about the intent so it doesn't look like a bug. :-)
Michael
> But, since we don't expect
> the query capability to be called in any kind of hot path, I am ok moving this
> down.
>
> >
> > Other than the above about the flag when the hypercall fails,
> > everything else looks good.
> Thanks for the review.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists