On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:03:07PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:16:09 +1100
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:26:38AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:33:37 +1100
> > > David Gibson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 0
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:16:09 +1100
David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:26:38AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:33:37 +1100
> > David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > The current code assumes that o
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:26:38AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:33:37 +1100
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > The current code assumes that only the CPU core object holds a
> > > reference on each individual CPU ob
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:33:37 +1100
David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The current code assumes that only the CPU core object holds a
> > reference on each individual CPU object, and happily frees their
> > allocated memory when the core is unreali
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:33:37 +1100
David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The current code assumes that only the CPU core object holds a
> > reference on each individual CPU object, and happily frees their
> > allocated memory when the core is unreali
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> The current code assumes that only the CPU core object holds a
> reference on each individual CPU object, and happily frees their
> allocated memory when the core is unrealized. This is dangerous
> as some other code can legitimely keep a
The current code assumes that only the CPU core object holds a
reference on each individual CPU object, and happily frees their
allocated memory when the core is unrealized. This is dangerous
as some other code can legitimely keep a pointer to a CPU if it
calls object_ref(), but it would end up wit