Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PoD: tie together P2M update and increment of entry count

2024-03-13 Thread George Dunlap
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:25 PM George Dunlap wrote: > I keep missing your post-commit-message remarks due to the way I'm > applying your series. Er, just to be clear, this is a problem with my workflow, not with your patches... -George

Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PoD: tie together P2M update and increment of entry count

2024-03-13 Thread George Dunlap
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:19 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 13.03.2024 11:58, George Dunlap wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:22 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > >> When not holding the PoD lock across the entire region covering P2M > >> update and stats update, the entry count - if to be

Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PoD: tie together P2M update and increment of entry count

2024-03-13 Thread Jan Beulich
On 13.03.2024 11:58, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:22 PM Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> When not holding the PoD lock across the entire region covering P2M >> update and stats update, the entry count - if to be incorrect at all - >> should indicate too large a value in preference to

Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PoD: tie together P2M update and increment of entry count

2024-03-13 Thread George Dunlap
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:22 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > > When not holding the PoD lock across the entire region covering P2M > update and stats update, the entry count - if to be incorrect at all - > should indicate too large a value in preference to a too small one, to > avoid functions bailing

[PATCH v3] x86/PoD: tie together P2M update and increment of entry count

2024-03-12 Thread Jan Beulich
When not holding the PoD lock across the entire region covering P2M update and stats update, the entry count - if to be incorrect at all - should indicate too large a value in preference to a too small one, to avoid functions bailing early when they find the count is zero. However, instead of