On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> and queued.
Wait no.
The order in vcpu_initialise is
hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
vlapic_init()
hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
softirq_tasklet_init()
setup_compat_arg_xlat()
Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.
The overall delta should be:
andrewcoop@andrewcoop:/local/xen.git/xen$ git diff HEAD^
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 4c0f561..9f74334 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
- hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
+ hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
vlapic_destroy(v);
- hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
+ hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
}
IIRC.
If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
