On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 04:16:04PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 01:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:57:41PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 00:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > @@ -96,6 +183,9 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work) > > > > > * It is now safe to release the object's resources > > > > > */ > > > > > eventfd_ctx_put(irqfd->eventfd); > > > > > + > > > > > + _irq_source_put(irqfd->source); > > > > > + > > > > > kfree(irqfd); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hang on, this is a bug I think. This is done asynchronously. So this > > > > means that I can assign MAX number of irqfds, then close one, and now > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is this? > > > Do you mean max irq source ids? > > > > Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry about being unclear. > > > > > > assign will fail because deassign did not get freed. > > > > > > > > Maybe we can solve this by flushing wq before assign? > > > > Looks a bit fragile but may be enough - need to document well. > > Why is this fragile? We could even make it part of a retry so we don't > call it unless we need to. >
It just ties in assign and deassign. Maybe it's ok - but pls add a comment explaining the whole design. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
