From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] VT-d: Refactor iommu_ops .map_page()
 and unmap_page()
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:12:04 +0100
Message-ID: <1456405924.6288.113.camel@citrix.com>
References: <945CA011AD5F084CBEA3E851C0AB28894B852193@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <56CED06D02000078000D609C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <945CA011AD5F084CBEA3E851C0AB28894B85272F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <56CF005F02000078000D626C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1396268696079616880=="
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <56CF005F02000078000D626C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
 <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
 <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Sender: "Xen-devel" <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Quan Xu <quan.xu@intel.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Feng Wu <feng.wu@intel.com>, "george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com" <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, "andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, "tim@xen.org" <tim@xen.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

--===============1396268696079616880==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-9OJkKd7V70Q+ymcvbwL+"

--=-9OJkKd7V70Q+ymcvbwL+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 05:23 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 25.02.16 at 13:14, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> >=C2=A0
> > To me, this might be fine.
> > Does Per-CPU flag refer to this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb) or
> > variant?
>=20
> Yes. But I'd prefer ...
>=20
> > > However, the same effect could be achieved
> > > by making the lock a recursive one, which would then seem to more
> > > conventional approach (but requiring as much code to be touched).
> > > Both approached would eliminate the need to pass down "locked"
> > > flags.
>=20
> ... this one (the more that the other won't mean less changes).
>=20
FWIW (which is, very few, given my very limited experience with this
code, yet :-)) I also think the recursive lock way is better.

Regards,
Dario
--=C2=A0
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


--=-9OJkKd7V70Q+ymcvbwL+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEABECAAYFAlbO/aQACgkQk4XaBE3IOsR0FQCfR3iIzd6z8402KjiZQnRn490n
8ucAn0QYLj7Y0g0/9dobzDi0UBhPYh14
=Mb8j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-9OJkKd7V70Q+ymcvbwL+--


--===============1396268696079616880==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs
IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMueGVuLm9y
Zy94ZW4tZGV2ZWwK

--===============1396268696079616880==--