Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] kexec: remove spinlock now that all KEXEC hypercall ops are protected at the top-level

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.04.17 at 12:56, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:49:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <eric.devolder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The spinlock in kexec_swap_images() was removed as
>> > this function is only reachable on the kexec hypercall, which is
>> > now protected at the top-level in do_kexec_op_internal(),
>> > thus the local spinlock is no longer necessary.
>>
>> But perhaps leave an ASSERT() there, making sure the in-hypercall
>> flag is set?
> 
> I am not sure why but if at all I think that we should also consider
> other key kexec functions then. Or put ASSERT() into do_kexec_op_internal()
> just before "switch ( op )".

The point of my placement suggestion was that the ASSERT()
effectively replaces the lock acquire - the places you name
didn't previously require any synchronization.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel