This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxc: use correct macro when unmapping memory a

To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxc: use correct macro when unmapping memory after save operation
From: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 08:25:53 -0600
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:27:05 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <19931.47489.431098.743040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <4DD6E579.7060304@xxxxxxxxxx> <19931.47489.431098.743040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20081112)
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jim Fehlig writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxc: use correct macro when 
> unmapping memory after save operation"):
>> With some help from Olaf, I've finally got to the bottom of an issue I
>> came across while trying to implement save/restore in the libvirt
>> libxenlight driver.  After issuing the save operation, the saved domain
>> was not being cleaned up properly and left in this state from xl's
>> perspective
> Good catch, thanks.  I have applied this.
> Next time, though, can you please be sure to add a Signed-off-by line,

Yes, apologies for the oversight.

BTW, thanks for the commit message note about "backporting to relevant
earlier trees".  I was going to ask that this be applied to
4.1-testing.  Should such a statement be included for fixes that apply
to multiple trees?  Is it helpful for scanning potential backports in


Xen-devel mailing list