From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: paulus@ozlabs.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: avoid unused variable warning for UP builds
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:24:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f7ee5d9-22b6-383f-e7c8-d39ced64314a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be118bdc-42c5-04a2-fecb-a242d973769f@redhat.com>
On 05/07/2017 14:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index f0fe9d02f6bb..09368501d9cf 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -187,12 +187,23 @@ static void ack_flush(void *_completed)
>> {
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool kvm_kick_many_cpus(const struct cpumask *cpus, bool wait)
>> +{
>> + if (unlikely(!cpus))
>> + cpus = cpu_online_mask;
>> +
>> + if (cpumask_empty(cpus))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
>> + return true;
>> +}
>
> wonder if the !cpus case would be worth moving into smp_call_function_many.
>
> smp_call_function_many() might also not kick any cpu, so we could make
> it return if it actually kicked/called this on any cpu. Then you could
> even get rid of the special handling of cpumask_empty(cpus) here and
> simply return the result of smp_call_function_many.
Separate patch of course. :)
>> +
>> bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
>> {
>> int i, cpu, me;
>> cpumask_var_t cpus;
>> - bool called = true;
>> - bool wait = req & KVM_REQUEST_WAIT;
>> + bool called;
>> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>>
>> zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> @@ -207,14 +218,9 @@ bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
>>
>> if (cpus != NULL && cpu != -1 && cpu != me &&
>> kvm_request_needs_ipi(vcpu, req))
>> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>> + __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>> }
>> - if (unlikely(cpus == NULL))
>> - smp_call_function_many(cpu_online_mask, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
>> - else if (!cpumask_empty(cpus))
>> - smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, wait);
>> - else
>> - called = false;
>> + called = kvm_kick_many_cpus(cpus, !!(req & KVM_REQUEST_WAIT));
>
> Is the !! really needed here? I think not.
I prefer having it. There are corner cases (e.g. isolating bit 32 or
higher and the function accepting an unsigned int instead of a bool)
where it can save your butt, and it's idiomatic C.
Paolo
>> put_cpu();
>> free_cpumask_var(cpus);
>> return called;
>>
>
> I like this from a cleanup point as well.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-05 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-05 10:35 Paolo Bonzini
2017-07-05 12:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-07-05 12:24 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2017-07-05 12:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-07-06 8:13 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7f7ee5d9-22b6-383f-e7c8-d39ced64314a@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®