2016-05-19 19:56 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>: > On 05/19/2016 01:48 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-05-19 19:42 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>: >>> On 05/19/2016 01:35 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>>> 2016-05-19 19:23 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>: >>>>> On 05/19/2016 11:26 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think in general a good idea to poll if a timer will expire soon. >>>>> >>>>> Some patch comments: >>>>> >>>>> Same for all non-x86 archs: >>>>>> +static inline unsigned int kvm_arch_timer_remaining(struct kvm_vcpu >>>>>> *vcpu) {} >>>>> >>>>> A function returning int, without a return statement? >>>>> That gives at least a compiler warning. >>>> >>>> How about return 0 for all non-x86 archs? >>> >>> We will provide an s390 implementation soon, but until then a proper >>> default would be good. >>> >>> [....] >>>>>> + if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns || (remaining < halt_poll_ns_base)) { >>> >>> but then remaining is 0 and the 2nd condition will always be true, no? >> >> Nice catch! >> >> How about something like below: >> >> + if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns || >> + (remaining != 0 && remaining < halt_poll_ns_base)) { > > Maybe just use -1UL to have a "will never expire" and change the return value > into u64 > while changing that.
Good idea, I will do it in next version. Regards, Wanpeng Li
