[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314974905.1861.2.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:48:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] xen/pvticket: allow interrupts to be enabled
while blocking
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 17:55 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> + /* Make sure an interrupt handler can't upset things in a
> + partially setup state. */
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
> + /*
> + * We don't really care if we're overwriting some other
> + * (lock,want) pair, as that would mean that we're currently
> + * in an interrupt context, and the outer context had
> + * interrupts enabled. That has already kicked the VCPU out
> + * of xen_poll_irq(), so it will just return spuriously and
> + * retry with newly setup (lock,want).
> + *
> + * The ordering protocol on this is that the "lock" pointer
> + * may only be set non-NULL if the "want" ticket is correct.
> + * If we're updating "want", we must first clear "lock".
> + */
> + w->lock = NULL;
I mean, I don't much care about Xen code, but that's two different
comment styles.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists