On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 07:38:51PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:50:31PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c > > > index 148c52a..1851aec 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c > > > @@ -548,6 +548,6 @@ struct kvm_pic *kvm_create_pic(struct kvm *kvm) > > > * Initialize PIO device > > > */ > > > kvm_iodevice_init(&s->dev, &picdev_ops); > > > - kvm_io_bus_register_dev(&kvm->pio_bus, &s->dev); > > > + kvm_io_bus_register_dev(kvm, &kvm->pio_bus, &s->dev); > > > return s; > > > > case KVM_CREATE_PIT2: > > create_pit: > > mutex_lock(&kvm->lock); > > kvm_io_bus_register_dev > > down_write(slots_lock); > > > > But the order is slots_lock -> kvm->lock. > > > > (you might want to update the comment on top of kvm_main.c to > > reflect that). > > Good catch. I think it's easiest to replace kvm->lock by slots_lock > here as well. Does something like the following make sense? > If yes I'll roll it up in the series. Looks good. Also please update the comment on top of kvm_main.c. -- 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
