[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ac8bf2c4a977a7756228b9abafe4aeac50abe28.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 06:33:05 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: User mutex guards to eliminate
__kvm_x86_vendor_init()
On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 18:17 +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> On 30.10.23 г. 18:07 ч., Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > > Current separation between (__){0,1}kvm_x86_vendor_init() is superfluos as
> >
> > superfluous
> >
> > But this intro is actively misleading. The double-underscore variant most definitely
> > isn't superfluous, e.g. it eliminates the need for gotos reduces the probability
> > of incorrect error codes, bugs in the error handling, etc. It _becomes_ superflous
> > after switching to guard(mutex).
> >
> > IMO, this is one of the instances where the "problem, then solution" appoach is
> > counter-productive. If there are no objections, I'll massage the change log to
> > the below when applying (for 6.8, in a few weeks).
> >
> > Use the recently introduced guard(mutex) infrastructure acquire and
> > automatically release vendor_module_lock when the guard goes out of scope.
> > Drop the inner __kvm_x86_vendor_init(), its sole purpose was to simplify
> > releasing vendor_module_lock in error paths.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
>
> Thanks, I'm fine with this changelog.
>
>
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists