Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:04:54 +0100 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock |
| |
>>> Matt Fleming 08/04/11 11:33 AM >>> >On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> Seems the wrong approach to me: The call happening with the lock held >> is the wrong part imo, and hence the fix ought to be to drop the lock >> there. > >But what about other platforms that provide a get_wallclock() >implementation such as the kvm or xen code? If we called get_wallclock()
Virtual platforms will have to take care of the serialization in the host anyway, so the guest side implementation of getwallclock et al is entirely unaffected.
>without rtc_lock held we'd be requiring everyone to lock it in their >clock code, which is unnecessary work and increases the amount of code >that touches rtc_lock (not to mention spreading it across several >files). > >I think it's much better to do the locking as high up the callstack as >possible and preferably in as few places as possible.
I agree to the "as few places as possible" part.
Jan
| |