On (Fri) 29 Mar 2013 [08:38:49], Asias He wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 04:58:31PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq
> > operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in
> > patch 2. Fix that.
>
> BTW, this looks suspicious. Why no lock here?
>
> static void remove_controlq_data(struct ports_device *portdev)
> {
> struct port_buffer *buf;
> unsigned int len;
>
> if (!use_multiport(portdev))
> return;
>
> while ((buf = virtqueue_get_buf(portdev->c_ivq, &len)))
> free_buf(buf, true);
>
> while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(portdev->c_ivq)))
> free_buf(buf, true);
> }
Since this is c_ivq, you mean why can't the host be queueing up data
in the vq while we're removing the buffers from the vq.
This function is called from two places, virtcons_remove() and
virtcons_freeze(). In both the cases, everything is set up so the host
can't send anything: vdev->config->reset() ensures that.
Is there something else that can be happening?
Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
