Re: [PATCH v4] page_alloc: assert IRQs are enabled in heap alloc/free

[David Vrabel <dvrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/04/2022 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 25/04/2022 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 25.04.2022 15:34, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 25/04/2022 14:28, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
> > > > @@ -162,6 +162,13 @@
> > > >    static char __initdata opt_badpage[100] = "";
> > > >    string_param("badpage", opt_badpage);
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Heap allocations may need TLB flushes which require IRQs to be
> > > The comment needs to be updated to reflect the fact that at least Arm
> > > doesn't use IPI to flush TLBs.
> > I thought the use of "may" was satisfying your earlier request?
> Maybe I read wrongly this comment... To me, anything after 'which' is 
> optional (it is a non-defining clause) and describe how the TLB flushes 
> works. So the 'may' here is referring to the possibility to use flush TLB.
Oh dear, you're using formal grammar with a native English speaker who's 
never seen a grammar rule in any of his schooling.
I think this should be:

"Heap allocations may need TLB flushes that require IRQs..."

i.e., "that" instead of "which"

David