On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:46:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.03.16 at 18:44, wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:24:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 24.03.16 at 21:00, wrote:
> >> > @@ -266,16 +275,15 @@ void *vzalloc(size_t size)
> >> > return p;
> >> > }
> >> >
>
>>> On 30.03.16 at 18:44, wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:24:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 24.03.16 at 21:00, wrote:
>> > @@ -266,16 +275,15 @@ void *vzalloc(size_t size)
>> > return p;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -void vfree(void *va)
>> > +void vfree_cb(void *va, unsigned int pages,
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:24:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 24.03.16 at 21:00, wrote:
> > @@ -266,16 +275,15 @@ void *vzalloc(size_t size)
> > return p;
> > }
> >
> > -void vfree(void *va)
> > +void vfree_cb(void *va, unsigned int pages, vfree_cb_t *vfree_cb_fnc)
>
> Just to rep
>>> On 24.03.16 at 21:00, wrote:
> @@ -266,16 +275,15 @@ void *vzalloc(size_t size)
> return p;
> }
>
> -void vfree(void *va)
> +void vfree_cb(void *va, unsigned int pages, vfree_cb_t *vfree_cb_fnc)
Just to repeat: This "caller provides size" worries me, the more that
this doesn't mirror