From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: domain_update_node_affinity: Correct
	the ASSERT
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:44:09 +0100
Message-ID: <53D27B49.70309@linaro.org>
References: <1406302204-13992-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<53D296F002000078000261CD@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1XAhfM-0005wV-2B
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:44:16 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m15so4381951wgh.15
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53D296F002000078000261CD@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Jan,

On 07/25/2014 04:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 25.07.14 at 17:30, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>> @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ void domain_update_node_affinity(struct domain *d)
>>          }
>>          /* Filter out non-online cpus */
>>          cpumask_and(dom_cpumask, dom_cpumask, online);
>> -        ASSERT(!cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask));
>> +        ASSERT( !d->vcpu || !d->vcpu[0] || !cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask));
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for the function to bail early in that case?

I've no idea. I mostly followed the advice on this thread:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/xen/devel/340233

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall