On Thursday 2012-08-02 22:22, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Friday 2012-07-27 12:34, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> >> +#ifndef _VMCI_COMMONINT_H_
>> >> +#define _VMCI_COMMONINT_H_
>> >> +
>> >> +#include
>> >> +#include
>> >
>> >Use inverse chrismas tree here.
>> >Longer include lines first, and soret alph
On 08/14/2012 05:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device
is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode.
And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine
with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not
crash like it does now.
Fair eno
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > > but it has been overwrit
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get corruption.
> > >
> > > No?
> >
> > At the point CPU2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:5
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What I think you sho
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> > primit
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > +/* __isolate_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
> > > > > +bool isolate_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (WARN_O
11 matches
Mail list logo
