On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:30:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > From: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunil...@microsoft.com> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 > 2:21 PM > > > > > What's the strategy for this flag in the unlikely event that the > > > hypercall fails? > > > It doesn't seem right to have hv_query_ext_cap() fail, but leave the > > > static flag set to true. Just move that line down to after the status > > > check > > > has succeeded? > > > > That call should not fail in any normal circumstances. The current idea was > > to > > avoid repeating the same call on persistent failure. > > OK, I can see that as a valid strategy. And the assumption is that a failed > hypercall would leave hv_extended_cap unmodified and hence all zeros. > > I'm OK with this approach if you want to keep it. But perhaps add a short > comment about the intent so it doesn't look like a bug. :-) >
Sunil, if you can send an updated version of your patch by either providing a comment or moving the code around, I can queue it up for hyperv-next. I think adding a comment is perhaps the easier thing to do. Wei.
