Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 23:15:35 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Hao Peng <flyingpenghao@gmail.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] kvm: x86: Keep the lock order consistent
Message-ID: <Y2RLl8MaGw/rn7TL@google.com>
References: <CAPm50aJPpzWz1nnBu6vhcac2kwKq29h-oq7jZtKz23XJ46LW0g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPm50aJPpzWz1nnBu6vhcac2kwKq29h-oq7jZtKz23XJ46LW0g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Nit, capitalize KVM in the shortlog, i.e. "KVM: x86:".

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, Hao Peng wrote:
> From: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@tencent.com>
> 
> Acquire SRCU before taking the gpc spinlock in wait_pending_event() so as
>  to be consistent with all other functions that acquire both locks.  It's
>  not illegal to acquire SRCU inside a spinlock, nor is there deadlock
>  potential, but in general it's preferable to order locks from least
>  restrictive to most restrictive, e.g. if wait_pending_event() needed to
>  sleep for whatever reason, it could do so while holding SRCU, but would
>  need to drop the spinlock.

Extra whitespace at the beginning of each line should be deleted.

> Thanks Sean Christopherson for the comment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@tencent.com>
> ---

Nits aside,

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>