On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:52:10 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Well, I had to pick one, and looking at the call chain, it seemed there wasn't
> much to gain by doing retiring at this point.
The point is that you're mixing the stuff the commit message talks about
with other changes *which are not ment
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:36:23 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:20:54 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >
> > The solution here is to add a new flag to the call chain which gives the
> > routines the information they need to possibly defer actions which may
> > cause us to recurse.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:20:54 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
>
> The solution here is to add a new flag to the call chain which gives the
> routines the information they need to possibly defer actions which may
> cause us to recurse.
This looks a lot nicer; it's shorter than I feared too.
> @@ -2051
After the ILK vt-d workaround patches it became clear that we had
introduced a bug. Chris tracked down the issue to recursive calls to
unmap. This happens because we try to optimize waiting on requests by
calling retire requests after the wait, which may drop the last
reference on an object and en
