[Xen-devel] [PATCH][VTD] fix assertion fault in pci passthrough

To:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] [PATCH][VTD] fix assertion fault in pci passthrough code
From:	"Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:17:48 -0700
Accept-language:	en-US
Acceptlanguage:	en-US
Delivery-date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:27 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcoBkxyOeceodU03RWmr/NyNHYUjwg==
Thread-topic:	[PATCH][VTD] fix assertion fault in pci passthrough code

Remove ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pcidevs_lock)) in pci_get_pdev_by_domain() to 
allow caller the flexibility to not hold the lock if it does not care if the 
device is hot removed between the time it got the pdev and the time it is used 
to get the corresponding vt-d engine.  In the new RHSA use case, we just wanted 
to get the vt-d engine of any device passthrough in the domain.  Also, rename 
RHSA field "domain" to "proximity domain" to avoid overloading the term 
"domain" in virtualization context.

Signed-off-by: Allen Kay allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx

devlock0710.patch
Description: devlock0710.patch

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH][VTD] fix assertion fault in pci passthrough code