On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:23:04AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 4/30/24 8:05 AM, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> > static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > {
> > struct vhost_task *vtsk = data;
> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > schedule();
> > }
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > + mutex_lock(&exit_mutex);
> > /*
> > * If a vhost_task_stop and SIGKILL race, we can ignore the SIGKILL.
> > * When the vhost layer has called vhost_task_stop it's already stopped
> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > vtsk->handle_sigkill(vtsk->data);
> > }
> > complete(&vtsk->exited);
> > - mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > + mutex_unlock(&exit_mutex);
> >
>
> Edward, thanks for the patch. I think though I just needed to swap the
> order of the calls above.
>
> Instead of:
>
> complete(&vtsk->exited);
> mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
>
> it should have been:
>
> mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> complete(&vtsk->exited);
JFYI Edward did it [1]
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/tencent_546DA49414E876EEBECF2C78D26D242EE50A@xxxxxx/
>
> If my analysis is correct, then Michael do you want me to resubmit a
> patch on top of your vhost branch or resubmit the entire patchset?
