On 22.07.2025 15:31, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 2:57 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.07.2025 14:37, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 2:18 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 22.07.2025 13:59, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> Reduce the scope of every variable so they are reinitialised. "iommu", >>>>> for instance, isn't being cleared, so the wrong flags may make it to >>>>> domains that should not have them. >>>> >>>> Yet "for instance" isn't quite right, is it? "iommu" is the only one where >>>> the (re)init was misplaced. The other two ... >>> >>> We do strive for minimal scope where possible. But you're right "for >>> instance" >>> might be misleading in suggesting there's more bugs than one. >>> >>> I'm happy to have "for instance" removed, leaving the rest as-is, if that >>> works >>> for you. >> >> Except that "every" isn't quite right either. Nor is "they". > > Ok, take 3: > > Reduce the scope of dom0less_iommu, iommu and cpupool_node. iommu, in > particular, wasn't being cleared, so the wrong flags may make it to > domains that should not have them.
Fine with me, thanks. Jan
