On 4/29/19 5:26 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 29.04.19 at 18:05, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:52 AM George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I haven't re-grokked the code here, but assuming I was correct 2 weeks
>>>> ago, if you have the BUG_ON() there, you can get rid of the extra
>>>> references.
>>>
>>> Sure, but again, the overhead of having them in-place is negligible so
>>> might as well just keep it.
>>
>> The overhead is only one aspect here. People looking at the code
>> may also be mislead into trying to figure out why the heck this
>> extra reference gets obtained. Plus sub-optimal code tends to get
>> cloned ...
> 
> Yea, I'm with you.. Alright, in that case Andrew pulled in that
> previous patch into x86-next for no good reason as that whole thing is
> going to get dropped now. Andrew - if you can just drop that patch
> from x86-next I'll rebase on staging and resend without that patch.

I assume he wants that branch to be fast-forwarding; if so, he can't
really pull it out.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to