On 19/10/2018 03:05, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > I'm calling this series a v3 because it supersedes the two series > I previously sent about using atomics for interrupt_request: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-09/msg02013.html > The approach in that series cannot work reliably; using (locked) atomics > to set interrupt_request but not using (locked) atomics to read it > can lead to missed updates.
The idea here was that changes to protected fields are all followed by kick. That may not have been the case, granted, but I wonder if the plan is unworkable. Paolo
