On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:29 AM George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On 4/29/19 5:26 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> On 29.04.19 at 18:05, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:52 AM George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> I haven't re-grokked the code here, but assuming I was correct 2 weeks > >>>> ago, if you have the BUG_ON() there, you can get rid of the extra > >>>> references. > >>> > >>> Sure, but again, the overhead of having them in-place is negligible so > >>> might as well just keep it. > >> > >> The overhead is only one aspect here. People looking at the code > >> may also be mislead into trying to figure out why the heck this > >> extra reference gets obtained. Plus sub-optimal code tends to get > >> cloned ... > > > > Yea, I'm with you.. Alright, in that case Andrew pulled in that > > previous patch into x86-next for no good reason as that whole thing is > > going to get dropped now. Andrew - if you can just drop that patch > > from x86-next I'll rebase on staging and resend without that patch. > > I assume he wants that branch to be fast-forwarding; if so, he can't > really pull it out. >
Yea, figured.. Oh well, not really a big deal. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
