From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:58:07 +0200
Subject: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding
 control
In-Reply-To: <559B7B6C.3060900@linaro.org>
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>
 <559ABDC5.3060200@redhat.com> <559B7B6C.3060900@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <559B949F.4070905@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 07/07/2015 09:10, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 07:41 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Sweated up (+ heat wave in France).

Same here, I also can blame the heat wave for the mistakes. :)

Paolo