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

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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