From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/x86: eliminate nesting of run-queue locks inside xtime_lock Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:41:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4C61811D020000780000F149@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4C6179F2020000780000F10F@vpn.id2.novell.com> <1281450319.24292.3945.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1281450319.24292.3945.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "salvet@ics.muni.cz" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 10.08.10 at 16:25, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 15:10 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> From: Zdenek Salvet >>=20 >> According to Debian bug 591362 this has been causing problems. While >> no proof was given that the inverse lock order does actually occur >> anywhere (with interrupts enabled), it is plain unnecessary to take >> the risk. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >=20 > I'm right in thinking this is for traditional Xen/Linux kernel only, > aren't I? Yes, absolutely. Jan