On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 05:23 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 25.02.16 at 13:14, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > To me, this might be fine. > > Does Per-CPU flag refer to this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb) or > > variant? > > Yes. But I'd prefer ... > > > > However, the same effect could be achieved > > > by making the lock a recursive one, which would then seem to more > > > conventional approach (but requiring as much code to be touched). > > > Both approached would eliminate the need to pass down "locked" > > > flags. > > ... this one (the more that the other won't mean less changes). > FWIW (which is, very few, given my very limited experience with this code, yet :-)) I also think the recursive lock way is better.
Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
