Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

xen-devel

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

To: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] wrong accounting in direct_remap_pfn_range
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:05:50 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, quintela@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:06:13 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44F6354B.2020806@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcbMmZlC2A4SPDiMEdummAAKle7CWA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] wrong accounting in direct_remap_pfn_range
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620


On 31/8/06 2:03 am, "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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.
>> 
> 
> So what is really wrong with this code?  Or is the flushes need even on
> size == 0?

This patch is fine. But it's no more correct than the current version of the
code because there is no bug. I don't think your version is particularly
clearer.

 -- Keir



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