On 17 Feb 2014, at 16:13, Mike Day wrote: >> 1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing >> it by >> rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in >> timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason why we >> need both? >> > > I responded incorrectly to this yesterday. We still need the mutex > here (active_timers_lock) to provide synchronization for list updates. > The difference now is that we don't need to hold the mutex for > traversing the list. But to update the list we still need to hold the > mutex.
Of course, my bad. -- Alex Bligh
