Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Yes it's correct but we'll get an endless stream of patches to 'fix' it
because it is so unorthodox.
Does it have to guarantee any kind of ordering in case of parallel
writes by distincting vcpus? This is what it does now (so if a vcpu
arrives first, the second will wait until the first is finished
processing).
No.
I suppose that is the responsability of the guest (if it does MMIO
writes to a device in parallel it'll screwup in real HW too).
Yes.
Because in such case, you can drop the mutex and protect only the kvm
data.
One has to be before the other. The order doesn't matter, but both have
to be there.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
