"joerg.roe...@amd.com" wrote @ Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:23:00
+0200:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:25:24PM +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> > The above spin_lock is always necessary. "as->lock" should be held to
> > protect "as->pdir_page". Only when "as->pdir_page" is NULL,
> > "as->pdir_page" would be a
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:25:24PM +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> The above spin_lock is always necessary. "as->lock" should be held to
> protect "as->pdir_page". Only when "as->pdir_page" is NULL,
> "as->pdir_page" would be allocated in "alloc_pdir()". Without this
> lock, the following race could h
Hi Joerg,
Joerg Roedel wrote @ Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:09:01 +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:26:38PM +0300, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Hiroshi DOYU
> > Reported-by: Chris Wright
> > Cc: Chris Wright
> > Acked-by: Stephen Warren
>
> Applied patch 2 and 3 but not patch 1. The r
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:26:38PM +0300, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Hiroshi DOYU
> Reported-by: Chris Wright
> Cc: Chris Wright
> Acked-by: Stephen Warren
Applied patch 2 and 3 but not patch 1. The resulting conflicts are
solved while merging the next branch. Also I am not happy wi
alloc_pdir() is called from smmu_iommu_domain_init() with spin_lock
held. memory allocations in alloc_pdir() had to be atomic. Instead of
converting into atomic allocation, this patch once releases a lock,
does the allocation, holds the lock again and then sees if it's raced
or not in order to avoi
