On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 16:48 +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote: > Instead of using a locking order based on line numbers which doesn't > play nicely with xSplice, statically define the locking order. > > Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerw...@citrix.com> > Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com>
FWIW, I actually like this... > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h > @@ -46,8 +46,10 @@ static inline int mm_locked_by_me(mm_lock_t *l) > return (l->lock.recurse_cpu == current->processor); > } > > -/* If you see this crash, the numbers printed are lines in this > file > - * where the offending locks are declared. */ > +/* > + * If you see this crash, the numbers printed are order levels > defined > + * in this file. > + */ > ... and, apart from the fat that it server xsplice purposes, I'd say this is an improvement on its own of the current situation (although I understand this is a matter of taste). :-) Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
