From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751400AbcGGMRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:17:51 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:50262 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805AbcGGMRp (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:17:45 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,324,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="371770010" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xenbus: don't bail early from xenbus_dev_request_and_reply() To: Jan Beulich References: <577E1FFE02000078000FBD8C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <577E219402000078000FBDB6@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <577E3ED0.906@citrix.com> <577E629C02000078000FC32F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> CC: , , "Juergen Gross" , From: David Vrabel X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <577E4865.1080307@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:17:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <577E629C02000078000FC32F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/07/16 13:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 07.07.16 at 13:36, wrote: >> On 07/07/16 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> We must not skip the transaction_end() call for a failed >>> XS_TRANSACTION_START. The removed code fragment got introduced by >>> commit 027bd7e899 ("xen/xenbus: Avoid synchronous wait on XenBus >>> stalling shutdown/restart") without its description really indicating >>> why it was added (and hence I can't identify whether a more complex >>> change might be needed here). >> >> If sending the XS_TRANSACTION_END message failed, then the transaction >> is still open and transaction_end() should not be called. >> >> However, if sending an XS_TRANSACTION_START failed, then >> transaction_end() should be called. >> >> So, yes a more complex fix is needed here. > > Well, both of the things you name are what happens with the patch > in place. So if those two conditions are all that needs to be satisfied, > then no more complex change is needed afaict (and was the behavior > before the cross referenced commit) - the question really is whether > that other commit meant to deal with something _beyond_ those two > things. You call transaction_end() if msg->type == XS_TRANSACTION_END, even if xb_write() returned an error. David