On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:48:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 05:08, Peter Xu wrote: > > cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap() has one RAMBlock* as > > parameter, which means that it must be with RCU read lock held > > already. Taking it again inside seems redundant. Removing it. > > Instead comment on the functions about the RCU read lock. > > > > Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > > --- > > include/exec/ram_addr.h | 5 +---- > > migration/ram.c | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/exec/ram_addr.h b/include/exec/ram_addr.h > > index 139ad79390..993fb760f3 100644 > > --- a/include/exec/ram_addr.h > > +++ b/include/exec/ram_addr.h > > @@ -408,6 +408,7 @@ static inline void > > cpu_physical_memory_clear_dirty_range(ram_addr_t start, > > } > > > > > > +/* Must be with rcu read lock held */ > > The usual way to spell this is "Called within RCU critical section.", > otherwise the patch looks good.
Sure, I'm switching to this with the r-b kept. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
