[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:10:36 +0200
From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, eric.auger@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, feng.wu@...el.com,
joro@...tes.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding
control
On 07/06/2015 07:41 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/07/2015 19:09, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> The good thing is that this helps a bit forming a lock hierarchy across
>>>> the subsystems, for example irq bypass mutex outside vfio_platform_irq
>>>> spinlock, because you cannot have a spinlock inside the mutex. I think
>>>> that all of your six callbacks are fine.
>> arghh, no that's wrong then. I have plenty of them in the KVM/arm vgic
>> part :-(
>
> I checked and it's right...
>
> /me rereads
>
> AAAARGH. You cannot have a mutex inside a spinlock. What you're doing
> is fine.
Sweated up (+ heat wave in France). Was about to read again the
"concurrency and race conditions" chapter of the linux driver bible.
Might be worth anyway ;-)
Many thanks for the review
Eric
>
> Paolo
>
--
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