WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0: #4ebd13..

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xu, Jiajun" <jiajun.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0: #4ebd13...
From: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:20:13 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc:
Delivery-date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:20:59 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C7E1F676.FD1F%keir.fraser@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>
References: <789F9655DD1B8F43B48D77C5D30659731D686E86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C7E1F676.FD1F%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcrVZdWHsO3qziLZSsizoRLuswj0mgAB+wXDAADHFWAAK+m8XQAAgIkwAADpasgAAKwYkA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0: #4ebd13...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:45 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong; Xu, Jiajun; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0:
>#4ebd13...
>
>On 07/04/2010 08:24, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I looked at the code again, and are you sure about this? As in, have you
>>> seen the assertion trigger? The check that current is the idle_vcpu is only
>>> made 'if(switch_required)', and that can only be the case if we are running
>>> the idle_vcpu! So I think my patch is good as it is, would you agree?
>>
>> Aha, yes, you are right, the patch is correct.
>> I tested your patch in my first round (I added the _redudant_ check in the
>> second round:$ ) and didn't trigger the assertion, the first round runs for
>> about 900 round before triger another bug. So, yes, it's a wrong alarm.
>
>I applied the patch as xen-unstable:21109. It actually includes a further
>change, to add an extra BUG()-check to cpu_exit_clear(). I think it should
>work fine.

Really thanks. I will test it later.

--jyh

>
> Thanks,
> Keir
>


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