On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> That's not how I read the code.  I see:
>>
>>>
>>> static void kvm_free_physmem_slot(struct kvm_memory_slot *free,
>>>                   struct kvm_memory_slot *dont)
>>> {
>>>     if (!dont || free->rmap != dont->rmap)
>>>         vfree(free->rmap);
>>
>> And it's called as kvm_free_physmem_slot(&old, &new);
>>
>> new is assigned to old to start out with so old.rmap will equal new.rmap.
>>
>
> Hm, if !npages we should just kvm_free_physmem_slot(&old, NULL).
Actually, I believe we need a little bit more than that, because we can
have valid rmaps in flight.

Tell me what you think about this.