On (Fri) 11 Nov 2011 [14:57:20], Rusty Russell wrote: > 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? Slight misnomer, I suppose. We do this init_console_port() as part of add_port() if the port is a console port. Should it be named 'mark_console_port()'? Dunno, doesn't sound like the right name. init fits closest. Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
