From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] kvm: remove in_range and switch to rwsem for iobus Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:57:22 +0300 Message-ID: <4A489002.1080106@redhat.com> References: <20090628193425.GA14204@redhat.com> <4A487D2C.2020007@redhat.com> <20090629092309.GA19167@redhat.com> <4A488D15.4060500@redhat.com> <20090629095132.GD19167@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, markmc@redhat.com To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:43690 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752276AbZF2Jzs (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:55:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090629095132.GD19167@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/29/2009 12:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> We can convert it to rcu indepenently of other things protected by >> slots_lock; no need to do everything at the same time. >> > > Yes but once we merge locks, it will be harder to split them out. > I know I can now do grep bus_lock and find all places affected, > if I reuse slot_lock this information is lost. No? > That's true, but for seeing the overall picture, fewer locks are better. I'm more concerned about those looking at all the code (me) than those implementing locking improvements (you). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function