>>> On 19.04.17 at 12:56, <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:49:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <eric.devol...@oracle.com> wrote: >> > The spinlock in kexec_swap_images() was removed as >> > this function is only reachable on the kexec hypercall, which is >> > now protected at the top-level in do_kexec_op_internal(), >> > thus the local spinlock is no longer necessary. >> >> But perhaps leave an ASSERT() there, making sure the in-hypercall >> flag is set? > > I am not sure why but if at all I think that we should also consider > other key kexec functions then. Or put ASSERT() into do_kexec_op_internal() > just before "switch ( op )".
The point of my placement suggestion was that the ASSERT() effectively replaces the lock acquire - the places you name didn't previously require any synchronization. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
