Re: [PATCH] argo: Remove reachable ASSERT_UNREACHABLE

[Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:22 AM Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/10/2022 20:31, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > I observed this ASSERT_UNREACHABLE in partner_rings_remove consistently
> > trip.  It was in OpenXT with the viptables patch applied.
> >
> > dom10 shuts down.
> > dom7 is REJECTED sending to dom10.
> > dom7 shuts down and this ASSERT trips for dom10.
> >
> > The argo_send_info has a domid, but there is no refcount taken on
> > the domain.  Therefore it's not appropriate to ASSERT that the domain
> > can be looked up via domid.  Replace with a debug message.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  xen/common/argo.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/common/argo.c b/xen/common/argo.c
> > index 748b8714d6..973e1e9956 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/argo.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/argo.c
> > @@ -1298,7 +1298,8 @@ partner_rings_remove(struct domain *src_d)
> >                      ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> >              }
> >              else
> > -                ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> > +                argo_dprintk("%pd has entry for stale partner domid %d\n",
> > +                             src_d, send_info->id.domain_id);
>
> I was just about to commit this, but it ought to be
>
> "%pd has entry for stale partner d%u\n"
>
> so the two domains are rendered alike in the message.
>
> Can fix on your behalf if you agree.

Yes, that sounds better.

Thank you.

-Jason