From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Make sure log-dirty is turned off
	before trying to dismantle it
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:33:28 +0000
Message-ID: <20120308123328.GF64337@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
References: <44b93337f0385079af8b.1331143125@drall.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120308121712.GE64337@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<1331209562.32288.47.camel@elijah>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1331209562.32288.47.camel@elijah>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

At 12:26 +0000 on 08 Mar (1331209562), George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 12:17 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 17:58 +0000 on 07 Mar (1331143125), George Dunlap wrote:
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> > > @@ -722,6 +722,10 @@ int paging_domctl(struct domain *d, xen_
> > >  /* Call when destroying a domain */
> > >  void paging_teardown(struct domain *d)
> > >  {
> > > +    /* Make sure log-dirty is turned off before trying to dismantle it. 
> > > +     * Needs to be done here becuse it's covered by the hap/shadow lock */
> > > +    d->arch.paging.log_dirty.disable_log_dirty(d);
> > > +
> > >      if ( hap_enabled(d) )
> > >          hap_teardown(d);
> > >      else
> > > 
> > 
> > This isn't needed upstream because the spinlock confusion that it's
> > papering over has been properly fixed (by eliminating the log-dirty
> > lock).
> 
> Yes; I'm afraid I didn't read the ticket referenced here very well
> either.  Sorry about that -- it just looked so obvious. :-)  
> 
> It looks like Keir has already added it -- do you want to revert it?

Yep - though I see it's already been reverted too. :)  The code is
harmless enough but the comment was confusing.

Tim.