Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] evtchn/fifo: don't corrupt queues if an old tail is linked

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.12.13 at 18:38, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> @@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ struct evtchn
>      } u;
>      u8 priority;
>      u8 pending:1;
> +    u16 last_vcpu_id;
> +    u8 last_priority;

Is it really correct for these two new fields to remain uninitialized
until evtchn_fifo_set_pending() would get run the first time (and
hence thinking there was a move this first time through)?

Which also gets me to ask whether it's really correct to only set
the priority to EVTCHN_FIFO_PRIORITY_DEFAULT in setup_ports(),
but not on any subsequently allocated/bound ones?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel