On 04/18/2013 02:45 AM, Robin Holt wrote: >>>>>>> For the v3.10 release, we should work on making this more >>>>>>> correct and completely documented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Better document is always welcomed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Double call ->release is not bad, like i mentioned it in the changelog: >>>>>> >>>>>> it is really rare (e.g, can not happen on kvm since mmu-notify is unregistered >>>>>> after exit_mmap()) and the later call of multiple ->release should be >>>>>> fast since all the pages have already been released by the first call. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, of course, it's great if you have a _light_ way to avoid this. >>>>> >>>>> Getting my test environment set back up took longer than I would have liked. >>>>> >>>>> Your patch passed. I got no NULL-pointer derefs. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your test again. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> How would you feel about adding the following to your patch? >>>> >>>> I prefer to make these changes as a separate patch, this change is the >>>> improvement, please do not mix it with bugfix. >>> >>> I think your "improvement" classification is a bit deceiving. My previous >>> patch fixed the bug in calling release multiple times. Your patch without >>> this will reintroduce that buggy behavior. Just because the bug is already >>> worked around by KVM does not mean it is not a bug. >> >> As your tested, calling ->release() multiple times can work, but just make your >> testcase more _slower_. So your changes is trying to speed it up - it is a >> improvement. >> >> Well, _if_ it is really a bug, could you please do not fix two bugs in one patch? > > The code, as is, does not call ->release() multiple times. Your code > changes the behavior to call it multiple times. You are introducing the > bug by your code changes. Why not fix the bug you create in the patch > which creates it? Andrew, your thought? -- 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
