On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > I am saying your intent was probably to test > > else if ((unsigned long)*(spinlock_t **)a == > (unsigned long)*(spinlock_t **)b) > return 0;
Indeed... > Hum, it's not a micro-optimization, but a bug fix. :) The good thing is that even if this bug would lead to a system crash, it would be still zero risk for everybody that isn't using KVM/GRU actively with mmu notifiers. The important thing is that this patch has zero risk to introduce regressions into the kernel, both when enabled and disabled, it's like a new driver. I'll shortly resend 1/12 and likely 12/12 for theoretical correctness. For now you can go ahead testing with this patch as it'll work fine despite of the bug (if it wasn't the case I would have noticed already ;). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
