On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:01:37PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > I was thinking of exactly that page->mapping == balloon_mapping check. As I > > > do not know how many active balloon drivers there might be I cannot guess > > > in advance how much of a scalability problem it will be. > > > > Not at all sure multiple drivers are worth supporting, but multiple > > *devices* is I think worth supporting, if for no other reason than that > > they can work today. For that, we need a device pointer which Rafael > > wants to put into the mapping, this means multiple balloon mappings. > > Rafael, please make sure that the balloon driver fails on the second and > subsequent balloon devices. > > Michael, we only allow multiple balloon devices because it fell out of > the implementation. If it causes us even the slightest issue, we should > not support it. It's not a sensible setup. > > Cheers, > Rusty. Looks like latest revision does it using a flag which seems cleaner, so I think the point is moot. -- MST -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>