On 13/03/14 13:56, Ian Campbell wrote:

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 13:17 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:

quoted

On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:

quoted

+				netdev_err(vif->dev,
+					   "Page still granted! Index: %x\n",
+					   i);
+			i = -1;

Should there not be a break here? Otherwise don't we restart the for
loop from 0 again? If that is intentional then a comment would be very
useful.

Yes, that's intentional, we shouldn't exit this loop until everything is
unmapped. An i-- would be fine as well. I will put a comment there.

Yes please do, it's very non-obvious what is going on. I'm almost
inclined to suggest that this is one of the few places where a goto
retry might be appropriate.

Can you also add a comment saying what is doing the actual unmap work
which we are waiting for here since it is not actually part of the loop.
Might a barrier be needed to ensure we see that work happening?

I don't think a barrier is necessary here, if this function ran into 
!NETBACK_INVALID_HANDLE, it just starts again the checking.

On 13/03/14 13:17, Zoltan Kiss wrote:>>
 >> [...]
 >>> +    /* Btw. already unmapped? */
 >>
 >> What does this comment mean? Is it a fixme? An indicator that
 >> xenvif_grant_handle_reset is supposed to handle this case or something
 >> else?
 > It comes from the time when xenvif_grant_handle_reset was not a
 > standalone function. Yes, it refers to the check in the beginning of
 > that function, and it should go there.

I ended up removing that comment, the error message in the function 
tells the same.

Zoli