 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] unregister_xenbus_watch() handling of xenwatch_mutex
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] unregister_xenbus_watch() handling of xenwatch_mutex |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:38:56 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:38:01 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
2.6.23 acquires the mutex before canceling pending events, whereas linux-2.6.18-xen acquires and releases the mutex back-to-back after doing the cancellation. It would seem to me that the former method is more robust, but otoh I'm wondering why this change then wasn't also made in the 2.6.18 tree. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] xenbus_dev_request_and_reply() checking for transaction end, Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] unregister_xenbus_watch() handling of xenwatch_mutex, Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] xenbus_dev_request_and_reply() checking for transaction end, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] unregister_xenbus_watch() handling of xenwatch_mutex, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
