Re: [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 13.05.2010, at 14:03, Avi Kivity wrote:

> On 05/13/2010 03:03 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 05/13/2010 03:01 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2010 02:57 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mind to give a high level overview on where you're moving which locks?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Um, looks like I forgot to fill in the patchset header.  Sorry.
>> 
>> Gar, I actually wrote it but forgot to save the file.
>> 
> 
> And it had some useful info:
> 
> [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking
> 
> In general, all vcpu ioctls need to take the vcpu mutex, but each one does it
> (or not) individually.  This is cumbersome and error prone.
> 
> This patchset moves all locking to a central place.  This is complicated
> by the fact that ppc's KVM_INTERRUPT and s390's KVM_S390_INTERRUPT break
> the convention and need to run unlocked.

Why is the x86 non-kernel-pic path different?

Alex

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux