On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:44:58 -0800, Miche Baker-Harvey <miche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Some modifications of vtermno were not done under the spinlock. > > Moved assignment from vtermno and increment of vtermno together, > putting both under the spinlock. Revert vtermno on failure. > > Signed-off-by: Miche Baker-Harvey <miche@xxxxxxxxxx> Does it matter? It's normal not to lock in a function called "init_XXX", since it's not exposed yet. Or is it? Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
