From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 6947: regressions - trouble:
	broken/fail/pass
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:39:19 +0100
Message-ID: <C9E47297.17170%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <C9E46CB7.17164%keir.xen@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9E46CB7.17164%keir.xen@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 02/05/2011 14:14, "Keir Fraser" <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:

> We'd probably also need an extra lock to protect against concurrent
> radix-tree update operations (should be pretty straightforward to add
> however, needing to protect *only* the radix-tree update calls).

Actually this second lock would need to encompass both the logical and
physical insert/delete operations. Possibly there is already a non-IRQ lock
on these code paths that can contain irq_desc-locked regions. If not then
such a lock would need to be added.

 -- Keir