On 06/05/16 16:48, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> Instead of using a locking order based on line numbers which doesn't
> play nicely with xSplice, statically define the locking order.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall
Along with this change, it would useful to modify the message in
__check_lock_level()
>>> On 06.05.16 at 17:48, wrote:
> @@ -201,11 +203,20 @@ static inline void mm_enforce_order_unlock(int
> unlock_level,
>
> /
> * *
> - * To avoid dead
On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 16:48 +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> Instead of using a locking order based on line numbers which doesn't
> play nicely with xSplice, statically define the locking order.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall
>
Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
FWIW, I actually like this...
> --- a
Instead of using a locking order based on line numbers which doesn't
play nicely with xSplice, statically define the locking order.
Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall
---
xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h | 29 -
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/
