On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:06:37 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:51:48 +0100 > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:03:54 +0100 > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Add a region to the vfio-ccw device that can be used to submit > > > asynchronous I/O instructions. ssch continues to be handled by the > > > existing I/O region; the new region handles hsch and csch. > > > > > > Interrupt status continues to be reported through the same channels > > > as for ssch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I had a look, and I don't have any new concerns.(New like not raised > > before.) > > So, what was raised before that I did not address? > I had the cp->initialized in mind here. My understanding is that this is the point at which safe accessors are necessary. But I consider that addressed. I'm still not a fan of this try_lock() and -EAGAIN in write (and just lock() in read approach), for the reasons I stated before. But it ain't a deal-breaker for me. It is just that I don't get the benefit of the busy looping userspace. Regards, Halil
