On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:34 AM Robin Murphy wrote:
> Sorry, but without convincing evidence, this change just looks like
> churn for the sake of it.
The time I wasted on arguing with you isn't worth anything than
the value this patch brings. So let's just drop it to save some
time.
Thanks.
On 21/01/2020 5:29 pm, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:52 AM Robin Murphy wrote:
On 18/12/2019 4:39 am, Cong Wang wrote:
If the magazine is empty, iova_magazine_free_pfns() should
be a nop, however it misses the case of mag->size==0. So we
should just call iova_magazine_empty().
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:52 AM Robin Murphy wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2019 4:39 am, Cong Wang wrote:
> > If the magazine is empty, iova_magazine_free_pfns() should
> > be a nop, however it misses the case of mag->size==0. So we
> > should just call iova_magazine_empty().
> >
> > This should reduce the
On 18/12/2019 4:39 am, Cong Wang wrote:
If the magazine is empty, iova_magazine_free_pfns() should
be a nop, however it misses the case of mag->size==0. So we
should just call iova_magazine_empty().
This should reduce the contention on iovad->iova_rbtree_lock
a little bit, not much at all.
If the magazine is empty, iova_magazine_free_pfns() should
be a nop, however it misses the case of mag->size==0. So we
should just call iova_magazine_empty().
This should reduce the contention on iovad->iova_rbtree_lock
a little bit, not much at all.
Cc: Joerg Roedel
Cc: John Garry
If the magazine is empty, iova_magazine_free_pfns() should
be a nop, however it misses the case of mag->size==0. So we
should just call iova_magazine_empty().
This should reduce the contention on iovad->iova_rbtree_lock
a little bit, not much at all.
Cc: Joerg Roedel
Cc: John Garry
