Sure: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-April/036884.html,
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at intel.com > wrote: > Hi Mauricio, > > > > Good points. Would you be willing to prepare a patch to fix these issues? > > > > Thanks, > > Anatoly > > > > *From:* Mauricio V?squez [mailto:mauricio.vasquezbernal at studenti.polito.it] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:13 AM > *To:* Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> > *Cc:* dev at dpdk.org; Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio < > sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce < > bruce.richardson at intel.com> > *Subject:* Re: Question about cd10c42eb5bc ("mem: fix ivshmem freeing") > > > > Hi Anatoly, > > Thank you very much, I did not take into account that detail. > > I have two additional concerns about it: > > 1. I think it is possible to have a race condition. The memzone is marked > as not freeable after it has been added to the ivshmem device, then it is > possible to free the memzone just after it has been added to the metadata > but before it is marked as not freeable. > > Shouldn't the memzone be marked before adding the memzone to the ivshmem > device? > > > > 2. Are the #ifdefs necessary?, we already are in a file that will only > compiled when ivshmem is enabled. > > Thanks, > > Mauricio Vasquez, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Burakov, Anatoly < > anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mauricio, > > > > You?re not missing anything. It would be done this way, if the memzone > parameter wasn?t const. But it is const, so we have to find the memzone in > config to edit it. > > > > Thanks, > > Anatoly > > > > *From:* Mauricio V?squez [mailto:mauricio.vasquezbernal at studenti.polito.it] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:22 AM > *To:* dev at dpdk.org > *Cc:* Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com>; > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly < > anatoly.burakov at intel.com> > *Subject:* Question about cd10c42eb5bc ("mem: fix ivshmem freeing") > > > > Dear All, > > I was looking at that patch, I can understand its functionality but not > its implementation.. > > Why to calculate idx?, Just doing "mz->ioremap_addr = mz->phys_addr" would > not be sufficient? After all, the goal is to mark the memzone as used by > ivshmem to forbid freeing it. > > Please corrected if I am missing something. > > Thank you, > > Mauricio Vasquez, > > >
