On 15.07.2019 11:50, Paul Durrant wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Sent: 15 July 2019 10:24 >> >> On 15.07.2019 11:17, Paul Durrant wrote: >>> The _PGC_allocated flag is set on a page when it is assigned to a domain >>> along with an initial reference count of at least 1. To clear this >>> 'allocation' reference it is necessary to test-and-clear _PGC_allocated and >>> then only drop the reference if the test-and-clear succeeds. This is open- >>> coded in many places. It is also unsafe to test-and-clear _PGC_allocated >>> unless the caller holds an additional reference. >>> >>> This patch adds a helper function, put_page_alloc_ref(), to replace all the >>> open-coded test-and-clear/put_page occurrences and incorporates in that a >>> BUG_ON() an additional page reference not being held. >> >> This last sentence reads somewhat strange to me - are there words >> missing and/or mis-ordered? > > Perhaps it reads better if 'BUG_ON()' is substituted with 'BUG() on'? > I just wanted to express that there was a new check in the helper > function that the necessary additional reference is held.
But then still more like "... incorporates in a BUG() on that an additional ..."? At which point it imo could as well be "... incorporates in a BUG_ON() that an additional ..." (i.e. just a word order change from your original sentence). (There's then perhaps also an "is" missing later in the sentence.) >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> >> With the commit message aspect clarified > > I am happy for you to re-word it if you feel it is not clear. Well, the problem is that I don't feel well adjusting what a native English speaking person has written. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
