From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: fix and cleanup: kvm_lock and hardware_disable
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:26:54 -0200
Message-ID: <20101118152654.GC14327@amt.cnet>
References: <20101116173244.c5d2e812.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39044 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932150Ab0KRQQA (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:16:00 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101116173244.c5d2e812.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:32:44PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> During investigating kvm's mutual exclusions, starting from checking
> kvm's srcu grace periods, I could not understand some of the locking rules.
> 
> This one is an example which I doubt.
> But I'm not so sure. Please check!
> 
> Thanks,
>   Takuya

Applied, thanks.