| 
         
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report
 
| 
To:  | 
"Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>, "Zheng, Shaohui"	<shaohui.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"	<xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Subject:  | 
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report | 
 
| 
From:  | 
"Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Date:  | 
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:52:46 +0800 | 
 
| 
Accept-language:  | 
zh-CN, en-US | 
 
| 
Acceptlanguage:  | 
zh-CN, en-US | 
 
| 
Cc:  | 
Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Delivery-date:  | 
Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:54:08 -0800 | 
 
| 
Envelope-to:  | 
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
In-reply-to:  | 
<F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE712556378690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
List-help:  | 
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> | 
 
| 
List-id:  | 
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> | 
 
| 
List-post:  | 
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> | 
 
| 
List-subscribe:  | 
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> | 
 
| 
List-unsubscribe:  | 
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> | 
 
| 
References:  | 
<A24AE1FFE7AEC5489F83450EE98351BF2BF2EC4CB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>	<F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE712556378690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Sender:  | 
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
Thread-index:  | 
Acu6GEBstpnTfIH/TdeQZvf0FjUZ0QAOlF+wAI5FPEAAJDXLMA== | 
 
| 
Thread-topic:  | 
Xen 4.1 rc1 test report | 
 
 
 
Wei, Gang wrote on 2011-01-25:
>> 2. [VT-d]xen panic on function do_IRQ after many times NIC pass-throu
>> (Intel)
>> http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1706
> There are three points we may need to do:
> 1. Figure out the root cause why the pciback could not locate the device.
> I suspect the previous 'xl destroy' didn't return the device to
> pcistub successfully.
> 
> 2. Figure out the root cause why the guest pirq was not force unbound.
> Just found:
> Some time because if ( !IS_PRIV_FOR(current->domain, d) ) hit, so
> returned with -EINVAL; Sometime if ( !(desc->status & IRQ_GUEST) )
> hit, so do not unbind.
> 
> 3. Think about how we could prevent such cases from panic Xen.
Just found sometime while doing domain_destroy the current->domain is IDLE 
domain, so the if ( !IS_PRIV_FOR(current->domain, d) ) hit and skip the pirq 
forcible unbinding. How could it happen?
Jimmy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
 
 |   
 
| <Prev in Thread] | 
Current Thread | 
[Next in Thread>
 |  
| 
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report, Wei, Gang
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report,
Wei, Gang <=
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report, Wei, Gang
[Xen-devel] Re: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report, Keir Fraser
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report, Wei, Gang
[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report, Wei, Gang
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix bug1706, Wei, Gang
 |  
  
 | 
    |