On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:44:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Michael,
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:14:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 May 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:04:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -242,6 +262,25 @@ static inline void apic_clear_irr(int vec, struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > > > > > apic->irr_pending = true;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static inline void apic_set_isr(int vec, struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + if (!__apic_test_and_set_vector(vec, apic->regs + APIC_ISR))
> > > > > > + ++apic->isr_count;
> > > > > > + ASSERT(apic->isr_count > MAX_APIC_VECTOR);
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really curious what you observed when defining DEBUG in that file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly you never did.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry :(
> > > > Yes clearly silly, thanks for pointing this out.
> > >
> > > That's all you have a reply for? That's the least of the problems ....
> >
> > Others are not my fault :)
>
> Interesting. The other changes you added are not your fault?
>
> So you provided a patch which you didn't author completely. You merily
> added the bogus ASSERTs, right ?
>
> Can you please explain why there is only your SOB on that patch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
I authored the patch, sorry if I didn't make it clear:
the bitmap data-structure that you noted as inefficient
is part of Linux, I merely keep it as it is upstream.
I'll reply to the original mail, it's easier.
--
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
