Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 09/13] libxl: introduce lock in libxl_ctx

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 09/13] libxl: introduce lock 
in libxl_ctx"):
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 09/13] libxl: introduce 
> lock in libxl_ctx"):
> > Since it is OK to take this lock recursively then it might be as well to
> > say so explicitly?
> > 
> > This is the first lock in libxl so I guess there isn't much of a locking
> > hierarchy yet. Are there any particular considerations which a caller
> > must make wrt its own locking?
> 
> I have added a comment explaining this.  No requirements are imposed
> on libxl's caller.  (Other than the reentrancy ones on callbacks.)

In fact this turns out not to be true.  I will document the
restrictions.  Good question BTW.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel