From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 2/5] gnttab: introduce per-active entry
	locks
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:49:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5538F867.7010707@citrix.com>
References: <1429718436-9782-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1429718436-9782-3-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<553904DC020000780007521E@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>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david.vrabel@citrix.com>) id 1YlHWc-00072p-4j
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:50:42 +0000
In-Reply-To: <553904DC020000780007521E@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: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Christoph Egger <chegger@amazon.de>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 23/04/15 13:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> @@ -3130,7 +3167,9 @@ grant_table_destroy(
>>  
>>      if ( t == NULL )
>>          return;
>> -    
>> +
>> +    spin_lock(&t->lock);
>> +
>>      for ( i = 0; i < nr_grant_frames(t); i++ )
>>          free_xenheap_page(t->shared_raw[i]);
>>      xfree(t->shared_raw);
>> @@ -3147,6 +3186,8 @@ grant_table_destroy(
>>          free_xenheap_page(t->status[i]);
>>      xfree(t->status);
>>  
>> +    spin_unlock(&t->lock);
> 
> Iirc I asked this before - do you really think these are needed? Because
> again - if they are, that would seem to be a separate bug fix.

It looks unnecessary to me.  Unless Matt can explain why he added it,
I'll drop it.

David