On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:15PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> The way we call kvm_vgic_destroy is a bit bizarre. We call it
> *after* having freed the vcpus, which sort of defeats the point
> of cleaning up things before that point.
>
> Let's move kvm_vgic_destroy towards the beginning of kvm_arch_destroy_vm,
> which seems more sensible.
>
Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> index 7846a578db1a..ebab6c29e3be 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,8 @@ void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> int i;
>
> + kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> +
> free_percpu(kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran);
> kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran = NULL;
>
> @@ -186,8 +188,6 @@ void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> kvm->vcpus[i] = NULL;
> }
> }
> -
> - kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> }
>
> int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> --
> 2.11.0
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
