Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 for-xen-4.5 1/2] dpci: Move from an hvm_irq_dpci (and struct domain) to an hvm_dirq_dpci model.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 27.10.14 at 17:36, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:25:41AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 24.10.14 at 21:09, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 24.10.14 at 03:58, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > @@ -156,6 +165,7 @@ int pt_irq_create_bind(
>> >> >              {
>> >> >                  pirq_dpci->gmsi.gflags = 0;
>> >> >                  pirq_dpci->gmsi.gvec = 0;
>> >> > +                pirq_dpci->dom = NULL;
>> >> >                  pirq_dpci->flags = 0;
>> >> >                  pirq_cleanup_check(info, d);
>> >> >                  spin_unlock(&d->event_lock);
>> >> 
>> >> Wait - is this correct even when pirq_guest_bind() succeeded but
>> >> msixtbl_pt_register() failed? At the first glance I would say no. But
>> > 
>> > Keep in mind that if 'msixtbl_pt_register' fails we immediately call
>> > 'pirq_guest_unbind' and then land in here.
>> 
>> Of course. But there was a window where the interrupt was
>> bound (and hence potentially got triggered).
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the hvm_dirq_assist (thanks to your suggestion) would not crash,
> instead it will just return as it checks for 'pirq_dpci->dom' being NULL.
> 
> I think this patch does not need any more changes?

Right - the replacement of these assignments with calls to the
helper function was in the other patch iirc.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel