RE: [PATCH 08/12] evtchn: ECS_CLOSED => ECS_FREE

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jan 
> Beulich
> Sent: 28 September 2020 12:00
> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap 
> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ian
> Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>; Wei Liu 
> <wl@xxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini
> <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH 08/12] evtchn: ECS_CLOSED => ECS_FREE
> 
> There's no ECS_CLOSED; correct a comment naming it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 

Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>

> --- a/xen/common/event_channel.c
> +++ b/xen/common/event_channel.c
> @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ int evtchn_close(struct domain *d1, int
>               * We can only get here if the port was closed and re-bound after
>               * unlocking d1 but before locking d2 above. We could retry but
>               * it is easier to return the same error as if we had seen the
> -             * port in ECS_CLOSED. It must have passed through that state for
> +             * port in ECS_FREE. It must have passed through that state for
>               * us to end up here, so it's a valid error to return.
>               */
>              rc = -EINVAL;
>