On 11/15/24 at 11:04am, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.11.24 10:32, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > Let's use our new mutex instead. > > > > Is there reason vmcoredd_mutex need be replaced and integrated with the > > vmcore_mutex? Is it the reason the concurrent opening of vmcore could > > happen with the old vmcoredd_mutex? > > Yes, see the next patch in this series. But I consider this valuable on its > own: there is no need to have two mutexes. > > I can make that clearer in the patch description. That would be great and more helpful. Because I didn't find the reason about the lock integration and avoid concurrent opening of vmcore in cover-letter and logs of the first few patches, I thought there have been potential problems and the first few patches are used to fix them.
