On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: >>>> 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? It avoids publishing new memslots with an old generation number attached to them (even if it only lasts for a short period of time). Do you have a reason why you don't want to doubly increase the generation? -- 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
