From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Fehlig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] libxl: Domain destroy: unlock userdata earlier Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:52:49 -0600 Message-ID: <5509BB71.4010803@suse.com> References: <1426606259-9692-1-git-send-email-jfehlig@suse.com> <1426606259-9692-3-git-send-email-jfehlig@suse.com> <20150317173423.GC23662@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1426681218.18247.354.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1426681218.18247.354.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 17:34 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 09:30:58AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote: >> >>> From: Ian Jackson >>> >>> Unlock the userdata before we actually call xc_domain_destroy. This >>> leaves open the possibility that other libxl callers will see the >>> half-destroyed domain (with no devices, paused), but this is fine. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson >>> CC: Wei Liu >>> Reviewed-by: Jim Fehlig >>> Tested-by: Jim Fehlig >>> >> Acked-by: Wei Liu >> > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell > > I'm not sure if this is safe/sensible to apply without the preceding > patch which I had a comment on. > It is not so sensible without the subsequent patch 3/3. This patch is not related to the preceding patch 1/3. Regards, Jim