Am 20.05.25 um 16:34 schrieb Nina Schoetterl-Glausch:
On Mon, 2025-05-19 at 16:42 +0200, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On Wed, 2025-05-14 at 18:38 +0200, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
All paths leading to handle_essa() already hold the kvm->srcu.
Remove unneeded srcu locking from handle_essa().
Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Why are you removing it tho?
It should be very low cost and it makes the code more robust,
since handle_essa itself ensures that it has the lock.
It is also easier to understand which synchronization the function does.
You could of course add a comment stating that the kvm srcu read side needs
to be held. I think this would be good to have if you really don't want the
srcu_read_lock here.
But then you might also want that documented up the call chain.
Actually, can we use __must_hold or have some assert?
Yes, that might be the best way.
