[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 09/10] [RFC only] xen: iommu: remove last pcidevs_lock() calls in iommu
- To: Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:25:51 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=BDTIOXCI/dacGdNJR6CsclTQLDidmYA3cnfhSAcWVcM=; b=B7X/zTeYgogPKA4Zl4dFZZ4J+PL8dYWM+RZdc/tOQAzy92qc9xJ1cUiXyX0OkjuqJTbK0SlTYcn6/NIPGsA3XtvNngF/y6jjUr6frnRThEuATioUwXfJX1hEnkbD/adXtfsNvhW3vflp9Q//7twMwXbDcx2uqBo9LNi5cpJ2iufZxYmpSoq8LEl3djEus7MlNTE++LvQgDKFmm7EaeScBzMB7I3nowgbKr00GMCoodu8WBdcu1Ti2XBWvvkDVTfHFP200ek1mPntz2xkLcR9OoOdRg9ICKqz4pZNg8jCEbQzVRsHQ97pOTcu2OMkwZuNsqu5Deq30Y6e3tEs1Cx5tA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=bClawmdVHGwkLWm+8UekalbOv3obd/yzV7b2YzPIS43pheSASiMMZz9JAd/GKQep5hXbCyfdPnrjKYYo0L/vxazVeniYca3ULgu94MRCKZpFvqI9euxzt/9THRdIn8wQdSRxiNBA9HBtaI58lYdtig8Il1NrxPQhbuVMHdyRCrPHD8aF/5LwBGAVhehrPa6whRgOQc2r+KNkUTLhKvrgpFN6MyHlKMi8C7ODKSxYmBLJSktZLnWFWa04XpZ1PicOCyfkvT+Xw4FohBu+9n0/NKNA0o+3DBIMAhypbE9XpngApFvAUxCO9G+Fat6O+HIZO9mSkk/GfyNViMZ8mqAk9g==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:26:08 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 31.08.2022 16:11, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> There are number of cases where pcidevs_lock() is used to protect
> something that is not related to PCI devices per se.
>
> Probably pcidev_lock in these places should be replaced with some
> other lock.
>
> This patch is not intended to be merged and is present only to discuss
> this use of pcidevs_lock()
For all such instances it needs to be understood what (if anything) is
being protected and how the same guarding can be achieved in the new
model. Since I'm afraid that's simply stating the obvious, I guess I
don't really understand what needs discussing here.
Jan
|
