On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:18 PM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 05:55:35PM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:15 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2021/1/23 上午4:08, Eugenio Pérez wrote: > > > > Cannot destroy address spaces of IOMMU-aware virtio devices without it, > > > > since they can contain memory listeners. > > > > > > > > > It's better to explain why the one in finalize doesn't work here. > > > > > > > Hi Jason! Good point. The other call is at virtio_device_instance_finalize. > > > > Function virtio_device_instance_finalize is called after > > address_space_destroy if we follow steps of buglink. > > > > Address_space_destroy is called by > > pci_qdev_unrealize/do_pci_unregister_device, after call to > > virtio_device_unrealize. After that call, > > virtio_device_instance_finalize is called through object_deinit, > > freeing the bus. > > > > Also, memory_listener_unregister can be called again because it checks > > for listener->address_space != NULL at start, and sets it to NULL at > > end. > > > > In regular shutdown, nothing of this is called, so maybe we could > > safely delete the call to memory_listener_unregister at > > virtio_device_instance_finalize? > > I didn't notice this; if so we'd better remove that call if it's destined to > be > a noop after all. > > > > > If not, should I send again the patch with a new commit message? > > Maybe attach the full backtrace too along with above? The assertion itself > could be a very good explanation of what's happened. >
I agree, sending v2. Thanks! > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu >
