>> + if ( rc ) >> + { >> + PERROR("Failed to release pfn %" PRI_xen_pfn, pfn); >> + return false; >> + } >> + ctx->restore.tot_pages--; >> + freed++; >> + } >> + pfn++; >> + } >> + if ( freed ) >> + DPRINTF("freed %u between %" PRI_xen_pfn " %" PRI_xen_pfn "\n", >> + freed, min_pfn, max_pfn); >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * Try to allocate superpages. >> + * This works without memory map only if the pfns arrive in incremental >> order. >> + */ > I have said several times, one way or another, I don't want to make > assumption on the stream of pfns. So I'm afraid I can't ack a patch like > this. > > If Ian or Andrew thinks this is OK, I won't stand in the way.
The stream has always been in-order for the first pass (even in the legacy days), and I don't forsee that changing. Reliance on the order was suggested by both myself and Jan during the early design. It is certainly an acceptable assumption until we put a proper address map into the head of the stream. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel