[Re: [PATCH-next v2] kvm: don't try to take mmu_lock while holding the main raw kvm_lock] On 26/06/2013 (Wed 23:59) Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 26/06/2013 20:11, Paul Gortmaker ha scritto: > > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > + kvm_put_kvm(kvm); > > srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx); > > > > kvm_put_kvm needs to go last. I can fix when applying, but I'll wait > for Gleb to take a look too. I'm curious why you would say that -- since the way I sent it has the lock tear down be symmetrical and opposite to the build up - e.g. idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu); [...] + kvm_get_kvm(kvm); [...] spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); [...] unlock: spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock); + kvm_put_kvm(kvm); srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx); You'd originally said to put the kvm_get_kvm where it currently is; perhaps instead we want the get/put to encompass the whole srcu_read locked section? P. -- > > Paolo -- 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
