On 23/04/15 13:42, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> @@ -3130,7 +3167,9 @@ grant_table_destroy( >> >> if ( t == NULL ) >> return; >> - >> + >> + spin_lock(&t->lock); >> + >> for ( i = 0; i < nr_grant_frames(t); i++ ) >> free_xenheap_page(t->shared_raw[i]); >> xfree(t->shared_raw); >> @@ -3147,6 +3186,8 @@ grant_table_destroy( >> free_xenheap_page(t->status[i]); >> xfree(t->status); >> >> + spin_unlock(&t->lock); > > Iirc I asked this before - do you really think these are needed? Because > again - if they are, that would seem to be a separate bug fix.
It looks unnecessary to me. Unless Matt can explain why he added it, I'll drop it. David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
