* Asias He <[email protected]> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Asias He <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c b/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c
> index 3feabd0..ade6335 100644
> --- a/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c
> +++ b/tools/kvm/virtio-blk.c
> @@ -159,7 +159,9 @@ static void virtio_blk_do_io(struct kvm *kvm, void *param)
> while (virt_queue__available(vq))
> virtio_blk_do_io_request(kvm, vq);
>
> + mutex_lock(&blk_device.mutex);
> kvm__irq_line(kvm, VIRTIO_BLK_IRQ, 1);
> + mutex_unlock(&blk_device.mutex);
Hm, this looks a bit strange (the mutex here protects only a kernel call - that
cannot be right) and there's no explanation why it's needed. Why do
VIRTIO_BLK_IRQ (== KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl()) calls have to be covered by the mutex?
A short blurb about expected behavior on SMP and locking rules at the top of
virtio-blk.c would be nice.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
