On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:05:00PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> 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?
OK, this makes sense to me now. Thanks.
> Amit
--
Asias
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
