>>> On 15.12.14 at 18:15, wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 05:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.12.14 at 22:20, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
>>> @@ -247,10 +247,32 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void vpmu_clea
On 12/15/2014 05:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.14 at 22:20, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
@@ -247,10 +247,32 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
}
}
+static void vpmu_clear_last(void *arg)
+{
+struct vcpu *v = (struct vcpu *)arg;
Pl
>>> On 12.12.14 at 22:20, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
> @@ -247,10 +247,32 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
> }
> }
>
> +static void vpmu_clear_last(void *arg)
> +{
> +struct vcpu *v = (struct vcpu *)arg;
Please drop this pointless cas
On 12/13/2014 02:08 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:20:48PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try dereference it in
the future, when VCPU is gone.
Signed-off-by: B
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:20:48PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
> VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try dereference it in
> the future, when VCPU is gone.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky
Release-Acked-by: Konrad Rzes
We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try dereference it in
the future, when VCPU is gone.
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c | 22 ++
1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletion
