On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:58:40PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote: > > > > + void (*invalidate_range_end)(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > > > + struct mm_struct *mm, int atomic); > > > > I think we need to pass in the same start-end here as well. Without it, > > the first invalidate_range would have to block faulting for all addresses > > and would need to remain blocked until the last invalidate_range has > > completed. While this would work, (and will probably be how we implement > > it for the short term), it is far from ideal. > > Ok. Andrea wanted the same because then he can void the begin callouts. > > The problem is that you would have to track the start-end addres right?
Yep. We will probably no do that in the next week, but I would expect we have that working before we submit xpmem again. We will probably just chain them up in a regular linked list. Thanks, Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
