On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 15:05 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 16:49 -0500, Mike D. Day wrote:
> > On 04/12/07 13:06 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > Does this work right across a PV domain save/restore on x86? On ia64
> > > I end up with "Domain-Unnamed" after I save a PV domain and another
> > > after I restore it, then do a shutdown. Reverting this patch restores
> > > correct behavior. Thanks,
> >
> > I'll investigate this regression. Do you have any ideas as to why this
> > is happening?
>
> Nope, that's why I'm hoping x86 does something similar ;^) Since I'm
> not using XSM_ENABLE, xsm_call should just be (0), which means the
> changed code should all be noops... but apparently something changes.
> BTW, xsm_call(domctl(domctl)) seems unnecessarily obfuscated. Thanks,
Looks like the problem is that XEN_DOMCTL_destroydomain now always
returns -ESRCH. The patch below seems to fix it although it may be just
as correct to hard code ret to 0. I also took the liberty of returning
the error value xsm_domctl() returns, which seems to match previous
behavior. Thanks,
Alex
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
---
diff -r 62451388f630 xen/common/domctl.c
--- a/xen/common/domctl.c Tue Dec 04 11:52:10 2007 +0000
+++ b/xen/common/domctl.c Tue Dec 04 17:11:07 2007 -0700
@@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domc
spin_lock(&domctl_lock);
- if ( xsm_domctl(op) )
+ ret = xsm_domctl(op);
+ if ( ret != 0 )
goto domctl_out;
switch ( op->cmd )
@@ -400,7 +401,7 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domc
ret = -ESRCH;
if ( d != NULL )
{
- domain_kill(d);
+ ret = domain_kill(d);
rcu_unlock_domain(d);
}
}
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home