Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 5/7] VT-d: Refactor iommu_ops .map_page() and unmap_page()

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 05:23 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 25.02.16 at 13:14, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> 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)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel