From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] In-kernel XICS interrupt controller emulation
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:08:44 -0500
Message-ID: <1367021324.26749.13@snotra>
References: <20130418062926.GA25033@drongo>
	<369C14EF-DE69-454C-A2A3-E1CC8FBD3258@suse.de> <1366996413.26749.2@snotra>
	<20130426235247.GB5743@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130426235247.GB5743@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> (from
	paulus@samba.org on Fri Apr 26 18:52:47 2013)
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 04/26/2013 06:52:47 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:13:33PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
> > Also please note that we no longer hold kvm->lock during device
> > creation, so your EEXIST check looks racy.
> 
> Huh?  Patch 2/8 adds this code:
> 
> +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +       if (kvm->arch.xics)
> +               ret = -EEXIST;
> +       else
> +               kvm->arch.xics = xics;
> +       mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> 
> How is that racy?

Sorry, it's not -- I must have been looking at the previous version of  
the patchset by mistake. :-(

-Scott