Re: [Xen-devel] Assert failure at paging.c:272

To:	"Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Assert failure at paging.c:272
From:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:06:20 +0000
Delivery-date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:07:16 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<B30DA1341B0CFA4893EF8A36B40B5C5D01E54E73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	Acgo8kzIOr1kkGqzTLm47CqXyVI19AAKFiSl
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] Assert failure at paging.c:272
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618

It shouldn't have been moved to before the paging_mode_log_dirty(d) check.
Actually I think the synchronisation between enabling/disabling log-dirty
mode and allocating/deallocating the log-dirty bitmap is slightly suspect. I
might look at that in a bit more detail next week.

 -- Keir

On 17/11/07 08:17, "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> (XEN) 
> (XEN) Reboot in five seconds...
> 
> Seems the assert there is not necessary, right?
> -Xin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Assert failure at paging.c:272