On 23.12.2020 14:33, Julien Grall wrote: > On 23/12/2020 13:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >> From the input by both of you I still can't >> conclude whether this patch should remain as is in v4, or revert >> back to its v2 version. Please can we get this settled so I can get >> v4 out? > > I haven't had time to investigate the rest of the VM event code to find > other cases where this may happen. I still think there is a bigger > problem in the VM event code, but the maintainer disagrees here. > > At which point, I see limited reason to try to paper over in the common > code. So I would rather ack/merge v2 rather than v3.
Since I expect Tamas and/or the Bitdefender folks to be of the opposite opinion, there's still no way out, at least if "rather ack" implies a nak for v3. Personally, if this expectation of mine is correct, I'd prefer to keep the accounting but make it optional (as suggested in a post-commit-message remark). That'll eliminate the overhead you appear to be concerned of, but of course it'll further complicate the logic (albeit just slightly). Jan
