On 19/04/17 12:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.04.17 at 12:56, <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:49:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <eric.devol...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> The spinlock in kexec_swap_images() was removed as >>>> this function is only reachable on the kexec hypercall, which is >>>> now protected at the top-level in do_kexec_op_internal(), >>>> thus the local spinlock is no longer necessary. >>> But perhaps leave an ASSERT() there, making sure the in-hypercall >>> flag is set? >> I am not sure why but if at all I think that we should also consider >> other key kexec functions then. Or put ASSERT() into do_kexec_op_internal() >> just before "switch ( op )". > The point of my placement suggestion was that the ASSERT() > effectively replaces the lock acquire - the places you name > didn't previously require any synchronization.
I'd recommend adding the ASSERT(), just to be on the safe side. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
