On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 01/02/2010 04:29, "Kaushik Kumar Ram" <kaushik@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, sounds good. Are you going to make the patch?
>>>
>>> Here is a first version of the patch. It was more complicated than I
>>> expected
>>> and it was also hard for me to decide if it was "efficient" enough.
>>> I can work on improving it, based on your feedback.
>>
>> I had a to fix a minor bug, please consider this patch.
>
> Somehow the patch is mangled and does not apply. But also it is very big.
> How about the attached patch instead? I think it does all we agreed on, and
> is much smaller.
Well, I tried really hard to avoid the extra checks inside the loop.
Maybe it doesn't matter.
There is one small issue in your patch, otherwise it is fine. When start_l1i
is not set, l2i has to be made zero. Otherwise, we would start halfway through
the next l2 whose l1i is set. I think this issue exists even in the original
code.
-Kaushik
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home