On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:06:41AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/26/2010 10:01 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:57:08AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 10/26/2010 08:58 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Well, you just changed where srcu index is saved. I don't see how it > >> >> could make a difference in practice. > >> >> > >> >If there is nested call to srcu read lock if srcu_idx is stored in vcpu > >> >nested call will override previous srcu_idx value and srcu unlock will > >> >not be called on it, but it will be called twice on new srcu_idx value. > >> >If srcu_idx is saved on stack this will not happen, no? > >> > >> Exactly. The case where srcu_idx is passed as a pointer parameter > >> is still dubious, but we can change that too. > >> > >But shouldn't we disallow recursive srcu lock tacking? > > With different srcu_idx, nested (or overlapping) srcu is legal. Right. If vcpu_enter_guest gets calles under a nested srcu call we'll still get a deadlock, however. > -- > 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
