Am Donnerstag, 15. November 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> To be annoying, it should be clearer to write this like:
>
> if ( (p->flags & PF_VCPU) &&
> !(hardirq_count() - hardirq_offset) &&
> !softirq_count() )
> {
> account_guest_time(p, cputime);
> return;
> }
[...]
> But I agree with your patch.
>
> Laurent
Yes, that would have the same result. I think its a matter of taste,
if we want to have a not-so-obvious one line if, or a multi-line-if.
I dont mind which version use, here is your variant as an alternative:
Ingo, you decide :-)
From: Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/sched.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: kvm/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- kvm.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ kvm/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3395,7 +3395,9 @@ void account_system_time(struct task_str
struct rq *rq = this_rq();
cputime64_t tmp;
- if (p->flags & PF_VCPU) {
+ if ( (p->flags & PF_VCPU) &&
+ !(hardirq_count() - hardirq_offset) &&
+ !softirq_count() ) {
account_guest_time(p, cputime);
return;
}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
