Re: [PATCH v1 7/8]: PVH privcmd changes

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:21:18 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 19:20 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:50:42 +0100
> > Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 23:31 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:21:35 +0100
> > > > Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
..... 
> > > > Right, that's why I had it originally checking for auto xlated
> > > > and doing something different. I think that is better than to
> > > > change this and change again. I'll change it back to just
> > > > putting the ptr here.
> > > 
> > > Won't that break because on the second call you will pass in the
> > > freshly allocated pointer and overwrite the exiting (useful) one
> > > with it?
> > 
> > No, for xlate, I just check for NULL. I didn't think it was big 
> > deal to special case xlate in this case. We got so many if xlate 
> > cases already thru the code. It leaves the semantics easy to 
> > understand: NULL == avail. 1 == locked PV. PTR == Locked PVH. I'll
> > add a comment this time :).
> 
> The transition from NULL => Locked PVH still needs to be done
> atomically and without clobbering any existing non-NULL value,
> otherwise it doesn't actually protect against multiple mappings like
> it is supposed to.
> 
> Ian.
> 

yes, of course :).