>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:45 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong; Xu, Jiajun; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0:
>#4ebd13...
>
>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.
Really thanks. I will test it later.
--jyh
>
> Thanks,
> Keir
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home