On 15.10.2022 15:14, Henry Wang wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> >> On 14/10/2022 12:19, Henry Wang wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> >>>>> + p2m_teardown(d, false); >>>> >>>> Today, it should be fine to ignore p2m_teardown(). But I would prefer if >>>> we add an ASSERT()/BUG_ON() (or else) to make confirm this is the case. >>> >>> Sorry I do not really understand why we can ignore the p2m_teardown() >>> probably because of my English. >> >> No, I forgot a word in my sentence. I was meant to say that the return >> of p2m_teardown() can be ignored in our situation because it only return >> 0 or -ERESTART. The latter cannnot happen when the preemption is not >> enabled. >> >> But I would like to add some code (either ASSERT() or BUG_ON()) to >> confirm that p2m_teardown() will always return 0. > > I added the doc asked in your previous email. Also, I will use a > > ASSERT(p2m_teardown(d, false) == 0); > > in p2m_final_teardown() here.
Hopefully this was meant only as an abstract plan, not the exact code you mean to add? ASSERT() expressions generally should not have side effects (which includes function calls). Jan
