From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wrong accounting in direct_remap_pfn_range
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:37:19 -0400
Message-ID: <44F62F3F.7030709@redhat.com>
References: <C11BC1E2.1894%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<44F62AA3.7050604@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <44F62AA3.7050604@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, quintela@redhat.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> I think you're confused. 
> 
> I usually am :)  But not on this one :P
> 

grr, I take it back, I am the one that's confused :P


OK, this all happens because this whole blob of code is crazy because it 
is missing a "if (size == 0)" check!

The "if (v != u)" is only not true when this function is called with 
size == 0, and we don't need to do anything.  Why not just have that 
check in the beginning and remove the "if (v != u)"?

It would have saved me a lot of wasted time here.  Or is this code meant 
to confuse me?

Sorry,


-- Steve