From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/blkback: Don't let in-flight requests defer pending ones. Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:24:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4DE6134F0200007800044CA7@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <1306668851.20284.123.camel@ramone> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Pradeep Vincent Cc: Xen , "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , Daniel Stodden List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 01.06.11 at 10:02, "Vincent, Pradeep" wrote: > Re: Locking >=20 > I was reflecting Jan Beulich's comment earlier in this thread. Like I = said > before (in this thread), the locking logic in blkback isn't obvious from > the code and the failure modes seem benign. If someone has good context = on > blkback locking strategy, I would love to learn. Also it would be very > useful to add some comments around lock usage to the blkback code. >=20 > Jan ?? No, not really - I'm more of an observer on this and similar discussions, just trying to learn as much as I can. Now and then I do notice possible issues, but as the design and the reasons for the choices made aren't (afaik, and like you also say) documented, a lot of room for guessing is usually left. Jan