From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40909) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT9DX-0001BR-95 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:15:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT9DS-0007X7-HS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:15:31 -0400 Message-ID: <5334164B.6020603@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:15:07 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1394603550-11556-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <1394603550-11556-2-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <532AC0D9.1050304@redhat.com> <5333B9D5.5040106@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <5333B9D5.5040106@ozlabs.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 01/11] memory: Sanity check that no listeners remain on a destroyed AddressSpace List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Alex Williamson Cc: David Gibson , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 27/03/2014 06:40, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: > On 03/20/2014 09:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 12/03/2014 06:52, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >>> From: David Gibson >>> >>> At the moment, most AddressSpace objects last as long as the guest system >>> in practice, but that could well change in future. In addition, for VFIO >>> we will be introducing some private per-AdressSpace information, which must >>> be disposed of before the AddressSpace itself is destroyed. >>> >>> To reduce the chances of subtle bugs in this area, this patch adds >>> asssertions to ensure that when an AddressSpace is destroyed, there are no >>> remaining MemoryListeners using that AS as a filter. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson >>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy >>> --- >>> memory.c | 7 +++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c >>> index 3f1df23..678661e 100644 >>> --- a/memory.c >>> +++ b/memory.c >>> @@ -1722,12 +1722,19 @@ void address_space_init(AddressSpace *as, >>> MemoryRegion *root, const char *name) >>> >>> void address_space_destroy(AddressSpace *as) >>> { >>> + MemoryListener *listener; >>> + >>> /* Flush out anything from MemoryListeners listening in on this */ >>> memory_region_transaction_begin(); >>> as->root = NULL; >>> memory_region_transaction_commit(); >>> QTAILQ_REMOVE(&address_spaces, as, address_spaces_link); >>> address_space_destroy_dispatch(as); >>> + >>> + QTAILQ_FOREACH(listener, &memory_listeners, link) { >>> + assert(listener->address_space_filter != as); >>> + } >>> + >>> flatview_unref(as->current_map); >>> g_free(as->name); >>> g_free(as->ioeventfds); >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini > > > What happens next to this patch and the next one ("int128: add > int128_exts64()")? I mean who you expect to pull them? Alex Graf? :) Thanks. Either him, or Alex Williamson. Paolo