On 1/10/23 13:55, David Woodhouse wrote:
However, I
completely forgot the sev_lock_vcpus_for_migration case, which is the
exception that... well, disproves the rule.
But because it's an exception and rarely happens in practice, lockdep
didn't notice and keep me honest sooner? Can we take them in that order
just for fun at startup, to make sure lockdep knows?
Sure, why not. Out of curiosity, is this kind of "priming" a thing
elsewhere in the kernel?
Fortunately, it's pretty easy to introduce a new lock just for xen.c and
revert the docs patch.
The wording of that made me hold off, on the expectation that if I did
it myself, you'd probably beat me to it with a patch. But I don't see
one yet. Shall I?
No, I have already written it but didn't send it because I wanted to
test it on the real thing using your QEMU patches. :) But that was a
rabbit hole of its own, my Xen knowledge is somewhat outdated.
Paolo
