On 08/19/2014 01:00 PM, David Matlack wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong > <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote: >>> But it looks like you basically said the same thing earlier, so I think >>> we're on the same page. >>> >> >> Yes, that is what i try to explain in previous mails. :( > > I'm glad we understand each other now! Sorry again for my confusion. Yup, me too. :) > >>> The single line patch I suggested was only intended to fix the "forever >>> incorrectly exit mmio". >> >> My patch also fixes this case and that does not doubly increase the >> number. I think this is the better one. > > I prefer doubly increasing the generation for this reason: the updated boolean > requires extra code on the "client-side" to check if there's an update in > progress. And that makes it easy to get wrong. In fact, your patch > forgot to check the updated bit in mark_mmio_spte(). Doubly increasing the > generation requires no "client-side" code to work. No, the updated patch is used to fix case 2 which i draw the scenario in the last mail. I mean the original patch in this patchset which just increase the number after srcu-sync. Then could you tell me that your approach can do but my original patch can not? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
