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