>>> On 02.11.15 at 17:29, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: > * steal_for_cache may now be wrong. I realize that since now ram == 0 > that all the subsequent "steal_for_cache" expressions will end up as > "false" anyway, but leaving invariants in an invalid state is sort of > asking for trouble. > > I'd prefer you just update steal_for_cache; but if not, at least leave a > comment there saying that it may be wrong and why it doesn't matter.
I've just done the other things, but I don't think steal_for_cache can have changed at this point: p2m_pod_cache_add() increments p2m->pod.count by the same value by which p2m_pod_zero_check_superpage() bumps p2m->pod.entry_count right after having called p2m_pod_cache_add(). I could leave a comment of ASSERT() to that effect, unless I'm overlooking something. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
