From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement bare minimum of HYPER-V MSRs.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:31:46 +0200
Message-ID: <20100113143146.GB7549@redhat.com>
References: <1263391197-9883-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <1263391197-9883-2-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <4B4DD6ED.8060101@redhat.com>
 <20100113142646.GZ7549@redhat.com>
 <4B4DD89B.2000701@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31532 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751116Ab0AMObr (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:31:47 -0500
Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0DEVlua025591
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:31:47 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B4DD89B.2000701@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:28:43PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/13/2010 04:26 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:21:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>  int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	switch (msr) {
> >>>@@ -1117,6 +1181,16 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data)
> >>>  		pr_unimpl(vcpu, "unimplemented perfctr wrmsr: "
> >>>  			"0x%x data 0x%llx\n", msr, data);
> >>>  		break;
> >>>+	case HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID ... HV_X64_MSR_SINT15:
> >>>+		if (kvm_hv_msr_partition_wide(msr)) {
> >>>+			int r;
> >>>+			mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> >>>+			r = set_msr_hyperv_pw(vcpu, msr, data);
> >>>+			mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> >>We do have locking.  Any reason not to put it in set_msr_hyperv_pw?
> >>Seems cleaner.
> >>
> >Actually the way I did it looks cleaner to me. If locking is done inside
> >set_msr_hyperv_pw() then each simple "return" statement there will have
> >to be changed into {ret=val; goto unlock;}.
> >
> 
> A break should suffice.
> 
It will still be {ret=val; break;}. 3 lines instead of one.

--
			Gleb.