2017-03-16 14:04+0800, Peter Xu: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:15:24PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> Am 15.03.2017 um 09:59 schrieb Peter Xu: >> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >> Am 15.03.2017 um 09:01 schrieb Peter Xu: >> >>> v2: >> >>> - add one more patch (patch 2 in v2) to check pic/ioapic's >> >>> existance before destroying them >> >> >> >> Patch 2+3 without 1 should work, too, right? >> > >> > We may need that? When destroy VM, it's: >> > >> > kvm_destroy_vm() >> > foreach (bus) do kvm_io_bus_destroy() >> > kfree(bus) <--- [1] >> > kvm_arch_destroy_vm() >> > kvm_pic_destroy() >> > kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev() <--- [2] >> > >> >> Wouldn't the natural way be >> >> 1. kvm_arch_destroy_vm() >> 2. foreach (bus) do kvm_io_bus_destroy() >> kfree(bus) >> >> Then we wouldn't have to deal with suddenly removed buses. But maybe >> that order is of importance here ... > > I'll leave this question for Paolo/Radim, or anyone knows this better > than me. :-) I'd like if kvm_destroy_vm() looked like kvm_create_vm() in reverse and the current order is closer to that. I don't think there is dependency between those two and we can easily reverse them in kvm_create_vm(), so go ahead if you get better code out of it in kvm_arch_destroy_vm(). :)
