Il 09/11/2012 20:31, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto:
>> That's done on purpose. After you do virtqueue_add_buf, you don't need
>> the sg list anymore, nor the lock that protects it. The cover letter is
>> at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/13/295 and had this text:
>>
>> This series reorganizes
Hi Paolo,
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 09:42 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 09/11/2012 07:29, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger
> >
> > This patch fixes a regression bug in virtscsi_kick_cmd() that relinquishes
> > the acquired spinlocks in the incorrect order using the w
Il 09/11/2012 07:29, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto:
> From: Nicholas Bellinger
>
> This patch fixes a regression bug in virtscsi_kick_cmd() that relinquishes
> the acquired spinlocks in the incorrect order using the wrong spin_unlock
> macros, namely releasing vq->vq_lock before tgt->tgt_lock
On 11/09/2012 02:29 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> From: Nicholas Bellinger
>
> This patch fixes a regression bug in virtscsi_kick_cmd() that relinquishes
> the acquired spinlocks in the incorrect order using the wrong spin_unlock
> macros, namely releasing vq->vq_lock before tgt->tgt_lock wh
From: Nicholas Bellinger
This patch fixes a regression bug in virtscsi_kick_cmd() that relinquishes
the acquired spinlocks in the incorrect order using the wrong spin_unlock
macros, namely releasing vq->vq_lock before tgt->tgt_lock while invoking
the calls to virtio_ring.c:virtqueue_add_buf() and
5 matches
Mail list logo
