Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> BTW, Gregor
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> BTW, Gregory, this can be used to fix the race in the design: create a
> >>> t
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> BTW, Gregory, this can be used to fix the race in the design: create a
>>> thread and let it drop the module reference with module_put_and_exit.
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:00:39AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 02:46:30PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:39 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Has
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 02:46:30PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:39 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
Hmm. I understand what you are saying conceptual
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 02:46:30PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:39 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > > Hmm. I understand what you are saying conceptually (i.e. the .text
> > > could get yanked before we
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:39 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > Hmm. I understand what you are saying conceptually (i.e. the .text
> > could get yanked before we hit the next line of code, in this case the
> > "return 0"). However,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> @@ -123,6 +124,7 @@ irqfd_wakeup(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int
> >> sync, void
> >> *key)
> >>
> >> cleanup_srcu_struct(&irqfd->srcu);
> >> kfree(irqfd);
> >> + module_put
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:39:21PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04,
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:39:21PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
[ restoring poor Davide's proper email address. Sorry for the constant
fat-fingering of your addr, Davide! ]
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
+static void
+irqfd_disconnect(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
+{
+
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> +static void
> >> +irqfd_disconnect(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
> >> +{
> >> + struct kvm *kvm;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&irqfd->
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> +static void
>> +irqfd_disconnect(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
>> +{
>> +struct kvm *kvm;
>> +
>> +mutex_lock(&irqfd->lock);
>> +
>> +kvm = rcu_dereference(irqfd->kvm);
>> +rcu_assign_point
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> +static void
> +irqfd_disconnect(struct _irqfd *irqfd)
> +{
> + struct kvm *kvm;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&irqfd->lock);
> +
> + kvm = rcu_dereference(irqfd->kvm);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(irqfd->kvm, NULL);
> +
> + mute
Assigning an irqfd object to a kvm object creates a relationship that we
currently manage by having the kvm oject acquire/hold a file* reference to
the underlying eventfd. The lifetime of these objects is properly maintained
by decoupling the two objects whenever the irqfd is closed or kvm is clos
18 matches
Mail list logo