Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] wrong accounting in direct_remap_pfn_range

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31/8/06 1:37 am, "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> grr, I take it back, I am the one that's confused :P
> 
> OK, this all happens because this whole blob of code is crazy because it
> is missing a "if (size == 0)" check!

It's not really missing. We could have a size==0 check *or* we can have the
v!=u check. We don't need both and I think the latter is more obviously
correct, as the test is closer to the code that it 'protects'. Also it's a
fairly idiomatic way of generating and flushing batches of work.

 -- Keir

> The "if (v != u)" is only not true when this function is called with
> size == 0, and we don't need to do anything.  Why not just have that
> check in the beginning and remove the "if (v != u)"?
>
> It would have saved me a lot of wasted time here.  Or is this code meant
> to confuse me?



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel