From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
wl@xen.org, stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com, iwj@xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/vpt: Simplify locking argument to write_{un}lock
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:49:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a2e901c-b14c-8969-3b9a-41874dd2a7c4@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGLU78AZmN2SAIbV@Air-de-Roger>
On 30.03.2021 09:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:15:02PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> Make both create_periodic_time() and pt_adjust_vcpu() call
>> write_{un}lock with similar arguments.
This makes it sound like you adjust both functions, but really
you bring the latter in line with the former. Would you mind me
adjusting the wording along these lines while (and when)
committing?
> Might be worth adding that this is not a functional change?
>
>> Requested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>
> Either way:
>
> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
>
>> ---
>> New patch.
>>
>> I ended up doing what Jan asked --- create_periodic_time() is also using different
>> start pointers in lock() and unlock().
>
> Hm, I'm not sure I'm following, create_periodic_time uses 'v' in both
> write_{un}lock calls, which doesn't change across the function.
I guess Boris merely meant to express that there's already precedent?
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-30 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-29 21:15 [PATCH v3 0/2] Performance regression due to XSA-336 Boris Ostrovsky
2021-03-29 21:15 ` [PATCH for-4.15 v3 1/2] x86/vpt: Do not take pt_migrate rwlock in some cases Boris Ostrovsky
2021-03-29 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/vpt: Simplify locking argument to write_{un}lock Boris Ostrovsky
2021-03-30 7:36 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-30 12:49 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-03-30 14:22 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-03-30 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Performance regression due to XSA-336 Ian Jackson
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=7a2e901c-b14c-8969-3b9a-41874dd2a7c4@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.