From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:41:25 +0200 Message-ID: <559ABDC5.3060200@redhat.com> References: <1436184692-20927-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1436184692-20927-4-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <559A7425.4050506@redhat.com> <559AA02A.6060703@linaro.org> <559AA552.3010400@redhat.com> <559AB62C.9000503@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org To: Eric Auger , eric.auger@st.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, avi.kivity@gmail.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, feng.wu@intel.com, joro@8bytes.org, b.reynal@virtualopensystems.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <559AB62C.9000503@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/07/2015 19:09, Eric Auger wrote: >> > The good thing is that this helps a bit forming a lock hierarchy across >> > the subsystems, for example irq bypass mutex outside vfio_platform_irq >> > spinlock, because you cannot have a spinlock inside the mutex. I think >> > that all of your six callbacks are fine. > arghh, no that's wrong then. I have plenty of them in the KVM/arm vgic > part :-( I checked and it's right... /me rereads AAAARGH. You cannot have a mutex inside a spinlock. What you're doing is fine. Paolo