[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6b7c933-2d48-1504-7c45-110b0ab317ad@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:39 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpeng2@...wei.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com
Cc: cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arei.gonglei@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/eventfd: fix the misleading comment in
kvm_irqfd_assign
Am 29.11.21 um 04:43 schrieb Longpeng(Mike):
> From: Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>
>
> The comment above the invocation of vfs_poll() is misleading, move
> it to the right place.
>
I think that the current variant is better.
events is only used in that function to check for EPOLLIN, so the
assignment and the if belong together from a "what am I doing here" perspective.
> Fixes: 684a0b719ddb ("KVM: eventfd: Fix lock order inversion")
> Signed-off-by: Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> index 2ad013b..cd01814 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> @@ -406,12 +406,12 @@ bool __attribute__((weak)) kvm_arch_irqfd_route_changed(
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&kvm->irqfds.lock);
>
> + events = vfs_poll(f.file, &irqfd->pt);
> +
> /*
> * Check if there was an event already pending on the eventfd
> * before we registered, and trigger it as if we didn't miss it.
> */
> - events = vfs_poll(f.file, &irqfd->pt);
> -
> if (events & EPOLLIN)
> schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists