On 18.03.2024 16:55, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 18.03.24 15:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Instead of special casing rspin_lock_irqsave() and
>>> rspin_unlock_irqrestore() for the console lock, add those functions
>>> to spinlock handling and use them where needed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> with two remarks:
>>
>>> --- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
>>> @@ -475,15 +475,31 @@ void _rspin_lock(rspinlock_t *lock)
>>> lock->recurse_cnt++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +unsigned long _rspin_lock_irqsave(rspinlock_t *lock)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>>> + _rspin_lock(lock);
>>> +
>>> + return flags;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> void _rspin_unlock(rspinlock_t *lock)
>>> {
>>> if ( likely(--lock->recurse_cnt == 0) )
>>> {
>>> lock->recurse_cpu = SPINLOCK_NO_CPU;
>>> - spin_unlock(lock);
>>> + _spin_unlock(lock);
>>
>> This looks like an unrelated change. I think I can guess the purpose, but
>> it would be nice if such along-the-way changes could be mentioned in the
>> description.
>
> I think it would be better to move that change to patch 3.
Hmm, it would be a secondary change there, too. I was actually meaning to
commit patches 2-5, but if things want moving around I guess I better
wait with doing so?
Jan
