On 13.01.23 10:53, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/01/2023 05:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11.01.23 18:48, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 11/01/2023 08:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
... to make sure domain_nbentry_add() is not returning a negative value.
Then it would not work.
A good
Hi Juergen,
On 12/01/2023 05:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11.01.23 18:48, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 11/01/2023 08:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
... to make sure domain_nbentry_add() is not returning a negative
value. Then it would not work.
A good example imagine you have a transaction r
On 11.01.23 18:48, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 11/01/2023 08:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
... to make sure domain_nbentry_add() is not returning a negative value. Then
it would not work.
A good example imagine you have a transaction removing nodes from tree but
not adding any. Then the "r
Hi Juergen,
On 11/01/2023 08:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
... to make sure domain_nbentry_add() is not returning a negative
value. Then it would not work.
A good example imagine you have a transaction removing nodes from tree
but not adding any. Then the "ret" would be negative.
Meanwhile the n
On 20.12.22 21:15, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 13/12/2022 16:00, Juergen Gross wrote:
Rework the interface and the internals of the per-domain node
accounting:
- rename the functions to domain_nbentry_*() in order to better match
the related counter name
- switch from node pointer to domid
Hi,
On 13/12/2022 16:00, Juergen Gross wrote:
Rework the interface and the internals of the per-domain node
accounting:
- rename the functions to domain_nbentry_*() in order to better match
the related counter name
- switch from node pointer to domid as interface, as all nodes have the
o
Rework the interface and the internals of the per-domain node
accounting:
- rename the functions to domain_nbentry_*() in order to better match
the related counter name
- switch from node pointer to domid as interface, as all nodes have the
owner filled in
- use a common internal function fo
