 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL
| To: | Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:13:10 +0000 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:14:23 -0800 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=x7mqjdbc/wQB1oNaTv86QGMTMV9yyTfl0ytnEXkIm/g=; b=CqRebj/iNgDGadOhlwpN+jyFcT6Bbft+z+53GJ1J0hn1WhHiuYwqwQ/vTMTN43QKPP UbZTj6vm3Zvz91lvN3pf4d5z8T1f+jLQvlNJjg1SjC8jt3rnBcFEPQ8+diE528iEUOio g2AknhXoijhx1apoo5eDNWJkwsuUNzapTjybk= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4EC4DA9C.60600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcylEYHxXLkhkfqLjEy3WDxf11lhhg== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 |
On 17/11/2011 09:57, "Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is due to a bad backport of c/s 24007:0526644ad2a6: In -unstable, >>> evtchn_unmask() must be called with d->event_lock held, while in 4.1 >>> the function acquires the lock (and now gets called with the lock already >>> held from do_physdev_op()'s case PHYSDEVOP_eoi). The change dates >>> back to 23573:584c2e5e03d9, which hardly is a candidate for backporting >>> (but maybe the locking change needs to be pulled out of there). >> >> Interestingly, Ubuntu's 4.1 fix has exactly the same problem. >> > > Hm, yes we should. I am pretty sure I hit that code path often enough, Wonder > why I never saw any dead lock there... Perhaps your dom0 kernel doesn't register a pirq_eoi_map. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL, Stefan Bader |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL, Stefan Bader |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL, Stefan Bader |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL, Stefan Bader |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
