Re: [patch 0/4] move irq protection role to separate lock v2

Avi Kivity
2009-05-21T15:04:31Z

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

>> x86 actually shares the same problem. KVM_IRQ_LINE interrupts may
>> arrive at any vcpu. Furthermore, with irqfd interrupts may be injected
>> from userspace (the vm process or other processes) or from the kernel
>> (assigned device, kernel virtio-net device). So we have the same
>> motivation to drop this lock and replace it by rcu for the fast paths.
>>
>
> OK, will use the lock to serialize individual ioctl commands that are
> not performance sensitive and need serialization.
>

Locks should protect data, not operations. Something named ioctl_lock
indicates something is wrong.

> Any objection to v2 of the irq_lock patch?
>

Haven't done a detailed review yet, sorry.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function