From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 11946: regressions - FAIL Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:11:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4FA50AF1.8010608@citrix.com> References: <1329216291.31256.207.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1332844592.25560.9.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4FA437E7.6040105@citrix.com> <1336214027.3735.16.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1336214027.3735.16.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> 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 , Daniel De Graaf , "Keir (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> The attached patch should prevent this panic > This is effectively the same as my patch from > <1332844592.25560.9.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>. I think "if (ssid) > xfree(...)" is preferable to "if (in_irq()) xfree(...)" but not enough > to prevent me: > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell > > If the debug code is going to stay for 4.2 then IMHO we should also take > this patch to make it actually useful. Otherwise we should just revert > the original debug patch before the release. > > Yes - I was thinking the same. I suggest that when xen-4.2-testing.hg gets branched off unstable, this debugging gets put back to just being an assert as before. However, I am quite unsure as to what would happen with interrupts following that failed assert. I shall re-do the patch. I think it is a fairly sensible patch to have in even after the main debugging has been removed, especially if similar debugging needs to be done in the future. ~Andrew