On 02/23/2018 02:00 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 02/23/2018 01:50 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 02/21/2018 03:03 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static irqreturn_t evtchnl_interrupt_ctrl(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> +{
>>> + struct xen_drm_front_evtchnl *evtchnl = dev_id;
>>> + struct xen_drm_front_info *front_info = evtchnl->front_info;
>>> + struct xendispl_resp *resp;
>>> + RING_IDX i, rp;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&front_info->io_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + if (unlikely(evtchnl->state != EVTCHNL_STATE_CONNECTED))
>>> + goto out;
>> Do you need to check the state under lock? (in other routines too).
> not really, will move out of the lock in interrupt handlers
> other places (I assume you refer to be_stream_do_io)
I was mostly referring to evtchnl_interrupt_evt().
-boris
> it is set under lock as a part of atomic operation, e.g.
> we get a new request pointer from the ring and reset completion
> So, those places still seem to be ok
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
