On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 07:19:58PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The function kvm_ioapic_destroy is defined as follows:
>
> void kvm_ioapic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic = kvm->arch.vioapic;
>
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ioapic->eoi_inject);
> if (ioapic) {
> kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev(kvm, KVM_MMIO_BUS, &ioapic->dev);
> kvm->arch.vioapic = NULL;
> kfree(ioapic);
> }
> }
>
> Is there any way that cancel_delayed_work_sync can work if ioapic is NULL?
> Should the call be moved down under the NULL test? Or is the NULL test
> not needed? The NULL test has been there longer than the call to
> cancel_delayed_work_sync, which was introduced in 184564ef.
>
> thanks,
> julia
I think the NULL test is not needed.
kvm_ioapic_destroy is only called if kvm_ioapic_init
completed successfully, and that sets kvm->arch.vioapic.
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
