On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> 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.
Ah, yes of course. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
