[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 2/2] VT-d: Fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue
>>> On 17.03.16 at 09:17, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Xu, Quan >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:13 PM >> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/qinval.c >> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/qinval.c >> @@ -233,6 +233,57 @@ int qinval_device_iotlb(struct iommu *iommu, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static void dev_invalidate_iotlb_timeout(struct iommu *iommu, u16 did, >> + u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn) >> +{ >> + struct domain *d = NULL; >> + struct pci_dev *pdev; >> + >> + if ( test_bit(did, iommu->domid_bitmap) ) >> + d = rcu_lock_domain_by_id(iommu->domid_map[did]); >> + >> + if ( d == NULL ) >> + return; >> + >> + pcidevs_lock(); >> + for_each_pdev(d, pdev) > > we need a 'safe' version here since you're deleting nodes > when walking list. for_each_pdev today is based on > list_for_each_entry. Or if it's sure that only one pdev > can match, we can break out of the loop to do removal. But breaking out of the loop is what is already being done ... >> + { >> + if ( ( pdev->seg == seg ) && >> + ( pdev->bus == bus ) && >> + ( pdev->devfn == devfn ) ) >> + { >> + ASSERT ( pdev->domain ); >> + list_del(&pdev->domain_list); >> + pdev->domain = NULL; >> + pci_hide_existing_device(pdev); >> + break; ... here. >> + } >> + } >> + >> + pcidevs_unlock(); No need for using "safe" list traversal afaict. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |