>>> On 05.10.16 at 15:54, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 10/05/2016 04:43 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> So with this I wonder btw. why your patch (mostly) fixing this >> shortcoming (while adding proper LOCK handling) never made it >> to a version that could be committed. > > I was under the impression that your stand on the rwlock patch had > remained that you prefer a stub version to it, for possible performance > reasons, hence I've not pressed the issue. If I've misunderstood I'm > happy to try to rework it for staging. > > I thought that the only acceptable solution was adding an actual stub > running on the physical VCPU, and unfortunately I didn't get to work one > out, in part because I had to tackle other issues, and partly because > it's not very clear how to go about that in this case.
Hmm, I have to admit I don't recall any stubs to be in the picture here. What I recall is that the locked region was too large, and covered cases which don't need a lock in the first place. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
