On 20.01.2023 18:02, George Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> Rather than doing a separate hash walk (and then even using the vCPU >> variant, which is to go away), do the up-pointer-clearing right in >> sh_unpin(), as an alternative to the (now further limited) enlisting on >> a "free floating" list fragment. This utilizes the fact that such list >> fragments are traversed only for multi-page shadows (in shadow_free()). >> Furthermore sh_terminate_list() is a safe guard only anyway, which isn't >> in use in the common case (it actually does anything only for BIGMEM >> configurations). > > One thing that seems strange about this patch is that you're essentially > adding a field to the domain shadow struct in lieu of adding another > another argument to sh_unpin() (unless the bit is referenced elsewhere in > subsequent patches, which I haven't reviewed, in part because about half of > them don't apply cleanly to the current tree).
Well, to me adding another parameter to sh_unpin() would have looked odd; the new field looks slightly cleaner to me. But changing that is merely a matter of taste, so if you and e.g. Andrew think that approach was better, I could switch to that. And no, I don't foresee further uses of the field. As to half of the patches not applying: Some where already applied out of order, and others therefore need re-basing slightly. Till now I saw no reason to re-send the remaining patches just for that. Jan
