| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:58:07 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>, 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 07/07/2015 09:10, Eric Auger wrote: > 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). Same here, I also can blame the heat wave for the mistakes. :) 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