Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/9] x86/HVM: Call vlapic_destroy after vcpu_destroy

2016-12-22 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 19.09.16 at 07:52, wrote: > Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise(). > We should also follow the same order here. s/same/inverse/? Also the ordering issue extends to other calls, and I think if at all possible we should then do all the

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/9] x86/HVM: Call vlapic_destroy after vcpu_destroy

2016-10-12 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:52:42AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise(). > We should also follow the same order here. > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

[Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/9] x86/HVM: Call vlapic_destroy after vcpu_destroy

2016-09-18 Thread Suravee Suthikulpanit
Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise(). We should also follow the same order here. Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit --- xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c