From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8 v2] Change irq_lock from mutex to spinlock. Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:29:00 +0300 Message-ID: <4A827D4C.6070709@redhat.com> References: <1249993895-11119-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1249993895-11119-9-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57334 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750973AbZHLI3M (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:29:12 -0400 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7C8TDst007682 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:29:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1249993895-11119-9-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/11/2009 03:31 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Change irq_lock from mutex to spinlock. We do not sleep while holding > it. > But why change? The only motivation I can see is to allow injection from irqfd and interrupt contexts without requiring a tasklet/work. But that needs spin_lock_irqsave(), not spin_lock(). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function