> On February 26, 2016 4:15pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> On 26.02.16 at 08:37, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > > On February 25, 2016 8:24pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 25.02.16 at 13:14, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > On February 25, 2016 4:59pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless I'd recommend not mixing things for the pcidevs one, as its uses > are scattered around too much for it to be reasonably possible to prove > correctness if done that way. > Instead please make the lock a static variable in e.g. > xen/drivers/pci/pci.c or xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c, and force > acquire/release to go through helper functions. That way we can ensure > instance gets left. The only safe alternative to this would be to rename the > lock > at once, or to make it read/write one (but then recursion would be allowed > only > for the read cases, and aiui you'd need the write variant for your use). > Jan, sorry, I don't follow this comment. Is it necessary for v6 patch set? Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
