On 18.03.24 16:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.03.2024 16:55, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 18.03.24 15:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
Instead of special casing rspin_lock_irqsave() and
rspin_unlock_irqrestore() for the console lock, add those functions
to spinlock handling and use them where needed.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
with two remarks:
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -475,15 +475,31 @@ void _rspin_lock(rspinlock_t *lock)
lock->recurse_cnt++;
}
+unsigned long _rspin_lock_irqsave(rspinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ _rspin_lock(lock);
+
+ return flags;
+}
+
void _rspin_unlock(rspinlock_t *lock)
{
if ( likely(--lock->recurse_cnt == 0) )
{
lock->recurse_cpu = SPINLOCK_NO_CPU;
- spin_unlock(lock);
+ _spin_unlock(lock);
This looks like an unrelated change. I think I can guess the purpose, but
it would be nice if such along-the-way changes could be mentioned in the
description.
I think it would be better to move that change to patch 3.
Hmm, it would be a secondary change there, too. I was actually meaning to
commit patches 2-5, but if things want moving around I guess I better
wait with doing so?
Hmm, maybe just drop this hunk and let patch 7 handle it?
Juergen
