Il 17/09/2014 18:58, Andres Lagar-Cavilla ha scritto:
> Understood. So in patch 1, would kvm_gup_retry be ... just a wrapper
> around gup? That looks thin to me, and the naming of the function will
> not be accurate.
Depends on how you interpret "retry" ("with retry" vs. "retry after
_fast"). :)
My point was more to make possible future bisection easier, but I'm not
going to insist. I'll queue the patch as soon as I get the required
Acked-by.
Paolo
--
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
