> 1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing it > by > rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in > timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason why we > need both? >
I responded incorrectly to this yesterday. We still need the mutex here (active_timers_lock) to provide synchronization for list updates. The difference now is that we don't need to hold the mutex for traversing the list. But to update the list we still need to hold the mutex. Mike
