Yikes no, the patch is obviously bogus.
Paolo
Il ven 26 ago 2022, 17:59 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> ha
scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:17 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> The KVM_DIRTY_GFN_F_DIRTY flag ensures that the entry is valid. If
>> the read of the fields are not ordered after the read of the flag,
>> QEMU might see stale values.
>>
>> Cc: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
>> index 8d81ab74de..f49643cd24 100644
>> --- a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
>> +++ b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
>> @@ -719,7 +719,7 @@ static void kvm_dirty_ring_mark_page(KVMState *s,
>> uint32_t as_id,
>>
>> static bool dirty_gfn_is_dirtied(struct kvm_dirty_gfn *gfn)
>> {
>> - return gfn->flags == KVM_DIRTY_GFN_F_DIRTY;
>> + return qatomic_load_acquire(&gfn->flags, KVM_DIRTY_GFN_F_DIRTY);
>>
>
> Is this patch based on another which changes the qatomic_load_acquire()
> prototype?
>
>
>> }
>>
>> static void dirty_gfn_set_collected(struct kvm_dirty_gfn *gfn)
>> --
>> 2.37.1
>>
>>
>>
