On 2012-10-23 13:55, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 01:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 22/10/2012 11:38, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef struct MemoryRegionOps MemoryRegionOps;
>>>>> typedef struct MemoryRegion MemoryRegion;
>>>>> @@ -66,6 +67,8 @@ struct MemoryRegionOps {
>>>>> target_phys_addr_t addr,
>>>>> uint64_t data,
>>>>> unsigned size);
>>>>> + int (*ref)(MemoryRegion *mr);
>>>>> + void (*unref)(MemoryRegion *mr);
>>>>>
>>> Why return an int? Should succeed unconditionally. Please fold into 7
>>> (along with 6).
>>
>> So the stop_machine idea is thrown away?
>
> IIRC I convinced myself that it's just as bad.
One tricky part with stop machine is that legacy code may trigger it
while holding the BQL, does not expect to lose that lock even for a
brief while, but synchronizing on other threads does require dropping
the lock right now. Maybe an implementation detail, but at least a nasty
one.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
