Hi Jan,
On 11/06/2017 11:09 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.10.17 at 11:49, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -44,7 +44,13 @@ static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
if ( unlikely(debug->irq_safe != irq_safe) )
{
>>> On 31.10.17 at 11:49, wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
> +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,13 @@ static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
> if ( unlikely(debug->irq_safe != irq_safe) )
> {
> int seen = cmpxchg(>irq_safe, -1,
Hi Andrew,
On 31/10/17 10:49, Andrew Cooper wrote:
If check_lock() triggers, a crash will occur. Instead of simply identifying
"the irq context was different", indicate the expected and current irq
context.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Release-acked-by: Julien
On 10/31/2017 10:49 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> If check_lock() triggers, a crash will occur. Instead of simply identifying
> "the irq context was different", indicate the expected and current irq
> context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: George Dunlap
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:49:10AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> If check_lock() triggers, a crash will occur. Instead of simply identifying
> "the irq context was different", indicate the expected and current irq
> context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
If check_lock() triggers, a crash will occur. Instead of simply identifying
"the irq context was different", indicate the expected and current irq
context.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: George Dunlap
CC: Jan Beulich