On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 09:05:08PM +0800, wanghaibin wrote:
> We slightly refactor vgic_its_destroy, separate vgic_its_free_list()
> function for later patch invoke.
>
> The patch also take a functional change. If the its->device_list.next
I don't see a functional change in this patch?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
> is NULL, we still should free the its.
> Honestly, I can't understand How does the its->device_list.next is NULL
> happened at this moment.
>
> Signed-off-by: wanghaibin <wanghaibin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> index aa6b68d..25d614f 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> @@ -1624,10 +1624,8 @@ static void vgic_its_free_device(struct kvm *kvm, struct its_device *dev)
> kfree(dev);
> }
>
> -static void vgic_its_destroy(struct kvm_device *kvm_dev)
> +static void vgic_its_free_list(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its)
> {
> - struct kvm *kvm = kvm_dev->kvm;
> - struct vgic_its *its = kvm_dev->private;
> struct list_head *cur, *temp;
>
> /*
> @@ -1653,7 +1651,14 @@ static void vgic_its_destroy(struct kvm_device *kvm_dev)
> kfree(coll);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static void vgic_its_destroy(struct kvm_device *kvm_dev)
> +{
> + struct kvm *kvm = kvm_dev->kvm;
> + struct vgic_its *its = kvm_dev->private;
>
> + vgic_its_free_list(kvm, its);
> kfree(its);
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
