On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 08/19/2014 01:00 PM, David Matlack wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong >> <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote: >>>> The single line patch I suggested was only intended to fix the "forever >>>> incorrectly exit mmio". >>> >>> My patch also fixes this case and that does not doubly increase the >>> number. I think this is the better one. >> >> I prefer doubly increasing the generation for this reason: the updated >> boolean >> requires extra code on the "client-side" to check if there's an update in >> progress. And that makes it easy to get wrong. In fact, your patch >> forgot to check the updated bit in mark_mmio_spte(). Doubly increasing the >> generation requires no "client-side" code to work. > > No, the updated patch is used to fix case 2 which i draw the scenario in > the last mail. I mean the original patch in this patchset which just > increase the number after srcu-sync. > > Then could you tell me that your approach can do but my original patch can > not?
It avoids publishing new memslots with an old generation number attached to them (even if it only lasts for a short period of time). Do you have a reason why you don't want to doubly increase the generation? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
