* Asias He <asias.hejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Asias He <asias.hejun@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c b/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c > index 3feabd0..ade6335 100644 > --- a/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c > +++ b/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c > @@ -159,7 +159,9 @@ static void virtio_blk_do_io(struct kvm *kvm, void *param) > while (virt_queue__available(vq)) > virtio_blk_do_io_request(kvm, vq); > > + mutex_lock(&blk_device.mutex); > kvm__irq_line(kvm, VIRTIO_BLK_IRQ, 1); > + mutex_unlock(&blk_device.mutex); Hm, this looks a bit strange (the mutex here protects only a kernel call - that cannot be right) and there's no explanation why it's needed. Why do VIRTIO_BLK_IRQ (== KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl()) calls have to be covered by the mutex? A short blurb about expected behavior on SMP and locking rules at the top of virtio-blk.c would be nice. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
