Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/PoD: tighten conditions for checking super page

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.11.15 at 17:29, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel