Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0: #4ebd13...

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/04/2010 08:24, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I looked at the code again, and are you sure about this? As in, have you
>> seen the assertion trigger? The check that current is the idle_vcpu is only
>> made 'if(switch_required)', and that can only be the case if we are running
>> the idle_vcpu! So I think my patch is good as it is, would you agree?
> 
> Aha, yes, you are right, the patch is correct.
> I tested your patch in my first round (I added the _redudant_ check in the
> second round:$ ) and didn't trigger the assertion, the first round runs for
> about 900 round before triger another bug. So, yes, it's a wrong alarm.

I applied the patch as xen-unstable:21109. It actually includes a further
change, to add an extra BUG()-check to cpu_exit_clear(). I think it should
work fine.

 Thanks,
 Keir



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