On 06/04/2016 03:12, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Hah, you've lighted on precisely a line of code where I changed around > what Andres had - I thought it nicer to pass down vcpu, because that > matched the function above, and in many cases vcpu is not dereferenced > here at all. So, definitely blame me not Andres for that interface. >
Oh, actually I'm fine with the interface if it's in arch/x86/kvm. I'm just pointing out that---putting aside the locking question---it's a pretty generic thing that doesn't really need access to KVM data structures. Paolo
