From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Egger, Christoph" <chegger@amazon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gnttab: Introduce rwlock to protect
 updates to grant table state
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:54:17 +0100
Message-ID: <54AFEB99.8090800@amazon.de>
References: <1417616967-18720-1-git-send-email-chegger@amazon.de>
	<1417616967-18720-2-git-send-email-chegger@amazon.de>
	<5492CA7502000078000508E8@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<54AFD209.70209@amazon.de>
	<54AFEF5E02000078000532C7@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <54AFEF5E02000078000532C7@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2015/01/09 15:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.01.15 at 14:05, <chegger@amazon.de> wrote:
>> On 2014/12/18 12:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 03.12.14 at 15:29, <chegger@amazon.de> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
>> [...]
>>>> @@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ __gnttab_unmap_common(
>>>>      }
>>>>  
>>>>      op->rd = rd;
>>>> +    read_lock(&rgt->lock);
>>>>      act = &active_entry(rgt, op->map->ref);
>>>>  
>>>>      if ( op->frame == 0 )
>>>
>>> The nesting of the two locks should be mentioned in the doc change.
>>
>> Where do you see the nesting coming from?
> 
> Reproducing the subsequent hunk I had commented on
> 
>> @@ -1004,6 +1005,7 @@ __gnttab_unmap_common(
>>  
>>   unmap_out:
>>      double_gt_unlock(lgt, rgt);
>> +    read_unlock(&rgt->lock);
> 
> there obviously are two (or really three) locks in simultaneous use
> here.

Ah, I see now. My mistake is I was looking for multiple subsequent
read_lock(&rgt->lock); calls and found nothing.

Christoph