On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 03:41:02PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> I still can't see how it could be possibly make a difference for the >> mm_count if the kvm module is compiled inside the kernel or as an >> external module, the reference counting there hasn't changed since >> ages. The mmdrop fires only in the first overflow so even if I'm right >> it probably wasn't much destabilizing to go negative given it happened >> at mm destruction time. >> >> > > It's this bit:
Ok. But the atomic_inc removal isn't conditional to < 2.6.25, so it still doesn't look good to me. it would look better if we would unconditionally define mmdrop to nop in the external module compile. The other problem is that I don't see why atomic_inc/mmdrop are needed at all if the external module is safe, so why don't we drop them? In ->release->kvm_destroy_vm it seems the kvm->mm is never used anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
