On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 11:18, Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter,Yuval > > On 3/24/20 1:05 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > So I think we require that the user of a protected-qlist > > ensures that there are no more users of it before it is > > destroyed (which is fairly normal semantics), and the code > > as it stands is correct (ie coverity false-positive). > > I agree is a false positive for our case. > "rdma_protected_qlist_destroy" is called by "mad_fini" which in turn is > called by "rdma_backend_fini" > *after* the VM shutdown, at this point there is no active lock user.
Also, the function coverity queried was rdma_protected_gslist_destroy(), not rdma_protected_qlist_destroy(). I notice that the gslist_destroy function does not destroy the mutex -- is this an intentional difference ? thanks -- PMM
