Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement bare minimum of HYPER-V MSRs.

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

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.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function