On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:05 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 18/12/2014 09:47, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 15:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >> The domain vgic lock is used uninitialized. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> > > > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> > > > >> --- > >> This is a bug fix for Xen 4.5 and Xen 4.4. The vgic lock is used > >> unitialized. Luckily we only use the field "raw" which is reset to 0 > >> during the domain allocation. > >> > >> There is no harm to apply for Xen 4.5 because it will correctly set > >> the spin_lock structure for a later usage. > > > > By your above reasoning there is also no point, is there? That said, I > > think we should take this since as you say it is harmless and good > > practice to initialise spinlocks even if not strictly necessary. > > It's necessary to initialize spinlocks, not all the field of the > spinlock is using the value 0 at initialization time.
You said "...we only use the field "raw" which is reset to 0...". Was that statement inaccurate? > What I meant if the current usage is fine. But if we want to debug > spinlock, it won't work. > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
