[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] wrong accounting in direct_remap_pfn_range
Keir Fraser wrote: 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. Well it wasn't obvious to me :PIf a size == 0 is passed in (for whatever reason!), couldn't we skip the flush_cache_all, flush_tlb_all and the allocation and freeing of a page and just return? If you want this in mainline Linux, you'll probably have others mention that too. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |