On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:26:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:15:08PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:56:58PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > It's a single line of code, and there's more than one > > > > > "shouldn't" in the above. > > > > > > > > If you want, I can both set it and add the comment. Thanks, > > > > > > Why bother with the comment? It'd be wrong in the sense that the as_id is > > > always valid/accurate, even if npages == 0. > > > > Sorry I'm confused.. when npages==0, why as_id field is meaningful? Even if > > the id field is meaningless after the slot is successfully removed, or am I > > wrong? > > > > My understanding is that after your dynamic slot work, we'll only have at most > > one extra memslot that was just removed, and that slot should be meaningless as > > a whole. Feel free to correct me. > > Your understanding is correct. What I'm saying is that if something goes > awry and the memslots need to be debugged, having accurate info for that one > defunct memslot could be helpful, if only to not confuse a future debugger > that doesn't fully understand memslots or address spaces. Sure, it could be > manually added back in for debug, but it's literally a single line of code > to carry and it avoids the need for a special comment. Sure, will do. But again, I hope you allow me to add at least some comment. To me, it's still weird to set these in a destroying memslot... -- Peter Xu
