On 12/02/18 15:17, Zhongze Liu wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi,
2018-02-12 23:09 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>:
Hi,
On 12/02/18 14:52, Zhongze Liu wrote:
2018-02-08 0:54 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>:
On 07/02/18 16:27, Zhongze Liu wrote:
It seems that I mistakenly use transaction as a global lock. Now I don't
have
any reasons not putting the unmap out of the transaction, but this will
break
the original transaction into two, and I do think that we need some
explicit
locking here.
Can you explain why you need specific locking here? What are you trying to
protect? Are you trying to protect against two process doing the unmap?
Yes.
I don't think you have to worry about the locking here. With the current
interface, the regions cannot be modified after the guest has booted. So
the addresses will always stay valid.
This code path should never be called concurrently, as a lot of code in
libxl, so I think someone else will take care about that for you (I will
let Wei confirm here).
In any case, the worst that could happen is the unmap is called twice on
the same region. So you would get spurious error message. Not that bad.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
