From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] kvm: use yield_to instead of sleep in kvm_vcpu_on_spin
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:27:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4D0327E0.6070500@redhat.com>
References: <20101202144129.4357fe00@annuminas.surriel.com> <20101202144516.45a0385d@annuminas.surriel.com> <4CFB8BFA.4040100@redhat.com> <4D0008D5.1040102@redhat.com> <4D00AF3C.40603@redhat.com> <4D010CD4.4020400@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D010CD4.4020400@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 12/09/2010 07:07 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Right. May be clearer by using a for () loop instead of the goto.
>
>
> And open coding kvm_for_each_vcpu ?
>
> Somehow I suspect that won't add to clarity...

No, I meant having a for (pass = 0; pass < 2; ++pass) and nesting 
kvm_for_each_vcpu() in it.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.