From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44409) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrQBb-00056m-NX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:09:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrQBa-0002OV-BP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:09:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28560) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrQBa-0002OQ-4Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:09:18 -0400 Message-ID: <51C96C45.5010500@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:09:09 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1372181185-3595-1-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130625094021.GA3539@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130625094021.GA3539@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] QEMUBH: make AioContext's bh re-entrant List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Liu Ping Fan , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 25/06/2013 11:40, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > Am 25.06.2013 um 19:26 hat Liu Ping Fan geschrieben: >> BH will be used outside big lock, so introduce lock to protect >> between the writers, ie, bh's adders and deleter. The lock only >> affects the writers and bh's callback does not take this extra lock. >> Note that for the same AioContext, aio_bh_poll() can not run in >> parallel yet. >> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan >> >> --------- > > Please use exactly three dashes so that 'git am' recognises it as the > end of the commit message. > > This doesn't compile yet because smp_read_barrier_depends() isn't merged > yet, so maybe there's still time for some nitpicking: Wouldn't using > atomic_set/get better document things and make them easier to read? Good idea. But it'll be a while before I merge the atomics patch, so it's perhaps better to get it in via the block branch (same as TLS). Paolo > It should be correct anyway, so: > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf >