On 09/02/2011 07:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 17:55 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> + /* Make sure an interrupt handler can't upset things in a
>> + partially setup state. */
>> local_irq_save(flags);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * We don't really care if we're overwriting some other
>> + * (lock,want) pair, as that would mean that we're currently
>> + * in an interrupt context, and the outer context had
>> + * interrupts enabled. That has already kicked the VCPU out
>> + * of xen_poll_irq(), so it will just return spuriously and
>> + * retry with newly setup (lock,want).
>> + *
>> + * The ordering protocol on this is that the "lock" pointer
>> + * may only be set non-NULL if the "want" ticket is correct.
>> + * If we're updating "want", we must first clear "lock".
>> + */
>> + w->lock = NULL;
> I mean, I don't much care about Xen code, but that's two different
> comment styles.
Yeah, that's the "two line comment style" next to "big block comment"
style - but you're right they look pretty bad juxtaposed like that.
J
--
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
