>>> On 12.08.15 at 11:19, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> writes:
>
>>>>> On 11.08.15 at 21:57, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:28:11PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>> @@ -1038,6 +1045,32 @@ void domain_unpause_except_self(struct domain *d)
>>>> domain_unpause(d);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +int domain_soft_reset(struct domain *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct vcpu *v;
>>>> + int rc;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock(&d->shutdown_lock);
>>>> + for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
>>>> + if ( !v->paused_for_shutdown )
>>>> + {
>>>> + spin_unlock(&d->shutdown_lock);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> + spin_unlock(&d->shutdown_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> + rc = evtchn_reset(d);
>>>
>>> You do ignore the 'rc' value? In which case why not just
>>> do:
>>>
>>> (void)evtchn_reset(d);
>>>
>>> Unless you want to return the 'rc' ?
>>
>> It clearly needs to be returned.
>
> Yes,
>
> as evtchn_reset() doesn't break somewhere in the middle (it can only
> return -EINVAL is !d->controller_pause_count in this case) I think we're
> OK with a simple
>
> if ( rc )
> return rc;
>
> here, no domain destroy which we introduce with arch-specific hooks is
> required (we haven't done anything to the domain yet).
>
> Jan, does you Acked-by: stand with such change?
Yes (the more that I already confirmed the change to be needed).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
