On 4/15/25 13:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 15/4/25 13:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:51 PM CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF
<clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 11:30 am, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless
this email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.
On 4/15/25 08:18, CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF wrote:
Address space creation might end up being called without holding the
bql as it is exposed through the IOMMU ops.
Signed-off-by: Clement Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--
d...@eviden.com>
Please use a separate lock instead of the BQL.
Hi Paolo,
We need this particular lock because some of the functions we call
require the bql to be held.
What functions do you need?
Is it a problem?
It depends on the function. :)
memory_region_set_enabled()
-> memory_region_transaction_begin()
-> assert(bql_locked())
Oh, I found Yi Liu's reply that came a little before mine.
Yeah, then I guess this is unavoidable (short of adding locks to all of
memory.c---which would be a good thing but...). But please mention this
in the comment that you are adding; this:
/* Some functions in this branch require the bql, make sure we own it */
describes the code but does not explain it.
Paolo
