On 29.02.24 15:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c @@ -458,6 +458,23 @@ void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock) spin_barrier_common(&lock->tickets, &lock->debug, LOCK_PROFILE_PAR); }+int rspin_is_locked(const rspinlock_t *lock)+{ + /* + * Recursive locks may be locked by another CPU, yet we return + * "false" here, making this function suitable only for use in + * ASSERT()s and alike. + */ + return lock->recurse_cpu == SPINLOCK_NO_CPU + ? spin_is_locked_common(&lock->tickets) + : lock->recurse_cpu == smp_processor_id(); +} + +void rspin_barrier(rspinlock_t *lock) +{ + spin_barrier_common(&lock->tickets, &lock->debug, LOCK_PROFILE_PAR); +}Ah, here we go. Looks all okay to me, but needs re-ordering such that the earlier patch won't transiently introduce a regression.
Yes, just wanted to answer something similar to your remark on patch 8. Juergen
