On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:38:47AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:32:57AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:28:47AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote > > > > > + case HV_X64_MSR_TIME_REF_COUNT: > > > > > r = true; > > > > > break; > > > > > } > > > > > @@ -1827,6 +1829,29 @@ static int set_msr_hyperv_pw(struct kvm_vcpu > > > > > *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data) > > > > > if (__copy_to_user((void __user *)addr, instructions, > > > > > 4)) > > > > > return 1; > > > > > kvm->arch.hv_hypercall = data; > > > > > + local_irq_disable(); > > > > > + kvm->arch.hv_ref_count = get_kernel_ns(); > > > > > + local_irq_enable(); > > > > > + break; > > > > > > > > local_irq_disable/local_irq_enable not needed. > > > > > > > get_kernel_ns has WARN_ON(preemptible()) so at least preempt_disable() > > > is needed, but all callers of the function disable interrupts. > > > > OK. Its not necessary to disable interrupts (this is a left over of > > kvm_guest_update_time). > So preempt_disable() then? Should we change other callers?
Yes. Should only disable interrupts if necessary (the case in kvm_write_guest_time is necessary). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
