From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] KVM: x86: simplify atomics in kvm_pit_ack_irq Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:56:39 +0100 Message-ID: <56C73B37.6070901@redhat.com> References: <1455736496-374-1-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <1455736496-374-3-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <56C607BB.3000103@redhat.com> <20160219155150.GC2456@potion.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Yuki Shibuya To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52950 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1427522AbcBSP4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:56:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160219155150.GC2456@potion.brq.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19/02/2016 16:51, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 wrote: > The end result is going to be identical. I had a version that did > something similar and it was pretty tangled as well -- I wanted to > remove useless locks before re-using one for the ioctls. > (We need the protection earlier, because userspace can control notifi= ers > while PIT is still being initialized. And removing the lock had > dependencies.) Yeah, I eventually imagined that cleaning up the locks helps with the patch that adds/removes the notifiers dynamically. Then I guess your current ordering of the patches is good! Paolo