From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 net] xen-netback: transition to CLOSED when removing a VIF Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:57:37 +0100 Message-ID: <5252BDD1.1000301@citrix.com> References: <1381150519-14557-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <20131007134314.GD28411@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , , Ian Campbell , Paul Durrant To: Wei Liu Return-path: Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:8177 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753429Ab3JGN5k (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:57:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131007134314.GD28411@zion.uk.xensource.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >> >> 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. David