On April 20, 2016 2:12pm, <jbeul...@suse.com > wrote:
> >>> "Xu, Quan" <quan...@intel.com> 04/20/16 7:29 AM >>>
> Ideally not, if it's a batch that it failing, The question just is whether at
> the point
> you issue the error message you can know another got already emitted. In no
> case must this lead to spamming of the console originating from an
> unprivileged
> domain.
>
> >> > + if ( unlikely(ret) )
> >> > + {
> >> > + while (i)
> >> > + iommu_unmap_page(d, gfn + --i);
> >>
> >> How about below?
> >>
> >> while (i-- >= 0)
> >> iommu_unmap_page(d, gfn + i);
> >
> >this modification is based on discussion rooted at
> >http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg01779.ht
> >ml
> >wait for Jan's decision.
>
> But did you really _follow_ that discussion? The adjustment done by that patch
> was specifically not deemed good, so the shape Kevin suggests is in line with
> the
> outcome of that discussion (except that I'd suggest omitting the ">= 0", the
> more that i at least ought to be unsigned here).
>
Based on your suggestions, I will fix it as below:
+while ( i-- )
+ iommu_unmap_page(d, gfn + i);
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
