On 04.03.24 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.03.2024 15:37, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 29.02.24 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
+#define nrspin_lock_irqsave(l, f) \
+({ \
On 01.03.2024 15:37, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 29.02.24 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> +#define nrspin_lock_irqsave(l, f) \
>>> +({ \
>>> +
On 29.02.24 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
+#define nrspin_lock_irqsave(l, f) \
+({ \
+BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(f) != sizeof(unsigned long)); \
+((f)
On 29.02.24 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -541,6 +541,55 @@ void rspin_unlock_irqrestore(rspinlock_t *lock, unsigned
long flags)
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
+int
On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
> +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
> @@ -541,6 +541,55 @@ void rspin_unlock_irqrestore(rspinlock_t *lock, unsigned
> long flags)
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> +int nrspin_trylock(rspinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +
Recursive and normal spinlocks are sharing the same data structure for
representation of the lock. This has two major disadvantages:
- it is not clear from the definition of a lock, whether it is intended
to be used recursive or not, while a mixture of both usage variants
needs to be
- in
