| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: changeset 22526:7a5ee3800417
At 16:57 +0000 on 07 Mar (1299517021), George Dunlap wrote:
> > Better to use old_entry.mfn, in the spirit of the original cset
> > ("access-once semantics")?
>
> I started to do that, but the one below didn't have an old_entry
> already.
>
> > In fact, I suspect that to be safe, you need
> > to do an atomic RMW instead of just an atomic set, and then decide
> > whether the VT-d tables will need to be synced.
>
> Are we not holding the p2m lock when writing entries?
Good point. :) I would prefer to use old_entry in both places anyway,
just for consistency with the general approach of reading once. It
won't be any slower.
Is this patch intended for 4.1.0?
Cheers,
Tim.
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team
Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home