Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/PoD: tighten conditions for checking super page

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 02.11.15 at 17:29, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> * steal_for_cache may now be wrong.  I realize that since now ram == 0
>> that all the subsequent "steal_for_cache" expressions will end up as
>> "false" anyway, but leaving invariants in an invalid state is sort of
>> asking for trouble.
>>
>> I'd prefer you just update steal_for_cache; but if not, at least leave a
>> comment there saying that it may be wrong and why it doesn't matter.
>
> I've just done the other things, but I don't think steal_for_cache
> can have changed at this point: p2m_pod_cache_add() increments
> p2m->pod.count by the same value by which
> p2m_pod_zero_check_superpage() bumps p2m->pod.entry_count
> right after having called p2m_pod_cache_add(). I could leave a
> comment of ASSERT() to that effect, unless I'm overlooking
> something.

Ah, yes of course.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel