He, Qing wrote:
> Avi,
> We have found a new bug about irqchip_in_kernel checking, as
> addressed by the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 88b0b89..69518f8 100644
> --- a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -283,7 +283,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_vcpu_init);
> void kvm_vcpu_uninit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> kvm_mmu_destroy(vcpu);
> - kvm_free_apic(vcpu->apic);
> + if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
> + kvm_free_apic(vcpu->apic);
> free_page((unsigned long)vcpu->pio_data);
> free_page((unsigned long)vcpu->run);
> }
>
> This is similar with what we try to fix several days ago. We
> could certainly fix them as they appear, however, I'm beginning to
> wonder, is the union of user/kernel irq really worthwhile? With this
> union, we may save some space, but there is cost. We have to do run-time
> checking which is time consuming, and there are potentially more bugs
> which will eventually bite us someday. If we remove it, making
> irq_summary and kernel apic not disturbing each other, the checking is
> saved, and we don't have to worry about future bugs caused by
> irq_summary, apic sharing any more.
>
>
I'm not opposed to the removal of the union (the space savings are
hardly significant). But will it really remove a source of bugs or just
hide them deeper? You'll need the tests most of the time anyway.
I'll apply a union-removing patch if you send one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
