On (Fri) 11 Nov 2011 [14:57:20], Rusty Russell wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:44:58 -0800, Miche Baker-Harvey [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Some modifications of vtermno were not done under the spinlock.

Moved assignment from vtermno and increment of vtermno together,
putting both under the spinlock.  Revert vtermno on failure.

Signed-off-by: Miche Baker-Harvey <redacted>

Does it matter?  It's normal not to lock in a function called
"init_XXX", since it's not exposed yet.

Or is it?

Slight misnomer, I suppose.

We do this init_console_port() as part of add_port() if the port is a
console port.  Should it be named 'mark_console_port()'?  Dunno,
doesn't sound like the right name.  init fits closest.

		Amit