From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5B3EC98311 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1431948.1653592 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x9fkT-0003Bq-2W; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:13 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1431948.1653592; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x9fkS-0003Bj-W6; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:12 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1431948; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:11 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x9fkR-0003Bd-8y for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:11 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1x9fkQ-00FFf4-1u; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:10 +0000 Received: from 224.pool85-54-217.dynamic.orange.es ([85.54.217.224] helo=localhost) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1x9fkR-008cch-0E; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:28:10 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=2qQjfmwYwMgSFjYQudrNjPJiuxq453V22V7l2VkBGn0=; b=1C0QUS+HA9v6rqqvE+gSLd/uAB 3O6k4e9CpwshzSnDEK8ruOlI+z3cE0MgRscKXU0GdC7BKCXhzXKRpteKJKenMb+IPhz4hgUyvVaSf AbFOi88unrbwL8hI5/4HS+PQgb0iSsV9PDLgJrN8wZEaNcIVexAqbEr848QvkNt5mPKo=; Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:28:08 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Stewart Hildebrand Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] vPCI: drop bogus locking assertion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 03:03:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > msix_find() is a local helper, with all callers explicitly acquiring the > per-domain PCI r/w lock. The checking, which should never have included > the alternative of holding the global PCI devices lock, therefore is > pretty much pointless. Hm, maybe. I guess we need to put some limits on how much we assert for correct locking if the callers are all in the same translation unit. > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné I wouldn't have removed it myself, but I'm also not going to oppose. Thanks, Roger.