[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] xen/domain: Fix label position in domain_teardown()
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:07:12 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QRNaHIMLj8ZoZe6ks1SpqQzK8fJRd90l60WqfHxFnOc=; b=O+eUGHegQ8Y/l/2+LJKkzt1fEgW3+uRRowiEQHEbNvTi2syJiwhmAQyb3GuMck42VrXvn/rqmJE2hdOAL7SS5Lq9z6qH6gqF0kGpYH78V4KxwxKLSaVHEd/cYXRSsI00K1JCwSlHp2PwfPlTk8Ely5/IvOdFy4P6WqIX2iZw/9lNUykE6snFlZ2suWzO1wKxNkytI0R9NxARyIzPpu2BBJOLIiP5avKTS+f25FvLb1NQjGkFeUQy+H9up87ZHchVVRQwQzG0K5c4FVmRLz9dkDwfTZUHlqe/GA4YVrsIdXN7NZx+SXIg0b1eVRBCywFFmvII+11x+OGYv4QmpcjRhw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hJM5tNEyE29Vrl9EPfQn7lSNnIDIBgyRU7Rh8UK8mTL0cJnj6r0UHR9i01GenwOoEIFonuuBaeJuWHr4yz5Nu5o3ETz+/GCZpf31iQMuMOexDVD5erk7jkNHmsSYONCKK9jRIYBZy38KrGd4srYYjdx5YZn9gMNnt1MuRLruNK/yXdxjtGezI7TjIJZMwqLOgyUg5Uv+LuYxxHuLsbMq6ZCD0NYXsu/zLor8qi6S2Gkw7F1yb2gbnSPRU+k7UIGWsgXGW6BI3okAH7kaA6WJ+gTvyz6kwBPnsX0ETUPqTFUlzpbYhxLj9wFREmUh2YQEFmTd5ue3VTAtWquoif5DQw==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:07:24 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 27.08.2021 16:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> As explained in the comments, a progress label wants to be before the function
> it refers to for the higher level logic to make sense. As it happens, the
> effects are benign because gnttab_mappings is immediately adjacent to teardown
> in terms of co-routine exit points.
>
> There is and will always be a corner case with 0. Help alleviate this
> visually (at least slightly) with a BUILD_BUG_ON() to ensure the property
> which makes this function do anything useful.
>
> There is also a visual corner case when changing from PROGRESS() to
> PROGRESS_VCPU(). The important detail is to check that there is a "return
> rc;" logically between each PROGRESS*() marker.
>
> Fixes: b1ee10be5625 ("gnttab: add preemption check to
> gnttab_release_mappings()")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Despite the Fixes: tag I don't really view this as requiring backport.
Then again it would need to go to 4.15 only. Will need to make up my
mind ...
Jan
|
