On (Fri) 11 Nov 2011 [14:57:20], Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:44:58 -0800, Miche Baker-Harvey <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Some modifications of vtermno were not done under the spinlock.
> >
> > Moved assignment from vtermno and increment of vtermno together,
> > putting both under the spinlock. Revert vtermno on failure.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miche Baker-Harvey <[email protected]>
>
> Does it matter? It's normal not to lock in a function called
> "init_XXX", since it's not exposed yet.
>
> Or is it?
Slight misnomer, I suppose.
We do this init_console_port() as part of add_port() if the port is a
console port. Should it be named 'mark_console_port()'? Dunno,
doesn't sound like the right name. init fits closest.
Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
