From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Updating dirty bitmap by non-atomic set bit is safe?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:18:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4BA8875D.3000506@redhat.com>
References: <4BA85BB4.8030001@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
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]:59196 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751870Ab0CWJSY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:18:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4BA85BB4.8030001@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 03/23/2010 08:12 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Hi, does anybody knows about this?
>
>
> Currently, dirty bitmap is updated by generic___set_le_bit().
> I checked the git log and mail archives but could not find any
> explanation why replacing set_bit() by generic___set_le_bit() is
> safe.
>   

IIRC it's protected by the mmu spinlock.

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