2016-10-12 09:15+0800, Longpeng (Mike):
> On 2016/10/12 2:23, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> This part is acceptable as it gives a new information code, yet the
>> function does not modify flags, which makes it unremarkable.
>> And dependencies on the caller would be better described in a header
>> (if we cannot express them well in the code).
>> The most comment-worthy thing about this function is the reason why we
>> execute the interrupt handler manually, i.e. the dependency on
>> VM_EXIT_ACK_INTR_ON_EXIT, but that is easy to tell from the commit
>> message and convenient access to git history is essential in a workflow,
>> so providing a leeway could be counter-productive.
>> I would go with no comment for now.
> Thanks for your patience, and your advice is useful for me.

I appreciate the patch, I just didn't want to repeat the same mistake
that you were fixing in the patch, which made me go into rambling mode.

Please send v2 with a simpler code comment (or no comment).
And you are more than welcome to improve the code even further!

> In addition, the comment below is misleading too, hope you can fix it
> simultaneously.
>       /* Interrupt is enabled by handle_external_intr() */
>       kvm_x86_ops->handle_external_intr(vcpu);

Yep, this comment should have been expressed in a function name.
Paolo already fixed it in 1a6982353db9 ("KVM: x86: remove stale

Reply via email to