On 05/01/2013 07:27:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/01/2013 07:15:53 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
This is not good practice (codepaths should either hold srcu or not
hold
it, unconditionally).
How is it different from moving the srcu lock into individual cases
of the switch? I just did it this way to make it easier to add new
exception types if necessary (e.g. at the time I thought I'd end up
adding exceptions which lead to instruction emulation, but I ended up
acquiring the lock further down the path in that case).
Can you give more details of the issue? (not obvious)
ITLB/DTLB miss call things like gfn_to_memslot() which need the lock
(but don't grab it themselves -- that seems like the real bad
practice here...).
Never mind on the parenthetical -- grabbing it themselves wouldn't work
because they return RCU-protected data.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
