On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 4:17 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 04.01.2024 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 23.12.2023 22:35, Christopher Clark wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 12:47 PM Christopher Clark
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>
On 04.01.2024 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.12.2023 22:35, Christopher Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 12:47 PM Christopher Clark
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
Christopher,
On 27.11.2023 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On 23.12.2023 22:35, Christopher Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 12:47 PM Christopher Clark
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> Christopher,
>>>
>>> On 27.11.2023 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
Holding a valid struct page_info * in hands already
On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 12:47 PM Christopher Clark
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > Christopher,
> >
> > On 27.11.2023 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Holding a valid struct page_info * in hands already means the referenced
> > > MFN is valid; there's no
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> On 27.11.2023 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Holding a valid struct page_info * in hands already means the referenced
> > MFN is valid; there's no need to check that again. Convert the checking
> > logic to a switch(), to
Christopher,
On 27.11.2023 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Holding a valid struct page_info * in hands already means the referenced
> MFN is valid; there's no need to check that again. Convert the checking
> logic to a switch(), to help keeping the extra (and questionable) x86-
> only check in