[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131007141523.GE28411@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:15:23 +0100
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 net] xen-netback: transition to CLOSED when removing a
VIF
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:57:37PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 07/10/13 14:43, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:55:19PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
> >>
> >> If a guest is destroyed without transitioning its frontend to CLOSED,
> >> the domain becomes a zombie as netback was not grant unmapping the
> >> shared rings.
> >>
> >> When removing a VIF, transition the backend to CLOSED so the VIF is
> >> disconnected if necessary (which will unmap the shared rings etc).
> >>
> >> This fixes a regression introduced by
> >> 279f438e36c0a70b23b86d2090aeec50155034a9 (xen-netback: Don't destroy
> >> the netdev until the vif is shut down).
> >>
> >
> > Is this regression solely caused by 279f438e36c or caused by both
> > ea732dff5c and 279f438e36c? I ask because you make use of the new state
> > machine introduced in ea732dff5c. Or are you simply using the new state
> > machine to fix the regression instead of going back to old code?
>
> I bisected it to 279f438. I'm just using the handy new state machine to
> fix it.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
Wei.
> David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists