On 5/23/2016 6:46 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.05.16 at 01:42, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
@@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain *d)
{
unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
+ASSE
>>> On 22.05.16 at 01:42, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> @@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain
> *d)
> {
> unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
>
> +ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain
> -Original Message-
> From: suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com
> [mailto:suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com]
> Sent: 22 May 2016 00:42
> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Paul Durrant; jbeul...@suse.com; George
> Dunlap
> Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Suravee Suthikulpanit; Suravee Suthikulpanit
> Subject: [PATCH
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit
At the time of registering HVM I/O handler, the HVM domain might
not have been initialized, which means the hvm_domain.io_handler
would be NULL. In the hvm_next_io_handler(), this should be asserted.
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercep
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit
At the time of registering HVM I/O handler, the HVM domain might
not have been initialized, which means the hvm_domain.io_handler
would be NULL. In the hvm_next_io_handler(), this should be asserted.
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercep
