On 14.10.2022 12:38, Henry Wang wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>
>>>>> + if ( d->arch.paging.p2m_total_pages != 0 )
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + spin_lock(&d->arch.paging.lock);
>>>>> + p2m_set_allocation(d, 0, NULL);
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&d->arch.paging.lock);
>>>>> + ASSERT(d->arch.paging.p2m_total_pages == 0);
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> Is it intentional to largely open-code p2m_teardown_allocation() here?
>>>
>>> Yes, AFAICT p2m_teardown_allocation() is preemptible and we don't want
>>> any preemption here.
>>
>> Like Jan, I would prefer if we can avoid the duplication. The loop
>> suggested by Jan should work.
>
> I am a little bit worried about the -ENOMEM, if -ENOMEM is
> returned from p2m_teardown_allocation(d), I think we are in
> the infinite loop, or did I miss understood the loop that Jan referred
> to?
Where would -ENOMEM come from? We're firmly freeing memory here. -ENOMEM
can only occur for a non-zero 2nd argument.
Jan
