From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] libxl: events: Deregister evtchn fd when not needed Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1418124715.14361.29.camel@citrix.com> References: <1417083745.12784.1.camel@citrix.com> <1417112870-31894-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> <1417112870-31894-6-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> <1417179851.23604.41.camel@citrix.com> <21624.35587.721780.498045@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1417186350.23604.54.camel@citrix.com> <21638.56211.381241.397871@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21638.56211.381241.397871@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: Jim Fehlig , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH 5/6] libxl: events: Deregister evtchn fd when not needed"): > > On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 14:47 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > libxl__ev_evtchn_* is always called with the ctx lock held. > > > > For the most part this is implicit due to the caller being in an ao > > callback, right? > > Yes. > > > > However, that they don't take the lock is contrary to the rules stated > > > for libxl__ev_* in the doc comment. That should be fixed for 4.6. > > > > OK. > > Should I take this as an ack ? There were other comments further down my original review which you haven't answered. I don't think they were (all) predicated on a particular answer to the first question (although some were). Ian.