Re: [PATCH v6 09/12] softmmu/physmem: Don't use atomic operations in ram_block_discard_(disable|require)

[David Hildenbrand]

On 22.02.21 14:14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/02/21 12:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >   
> > -/*
> > - * If positive, discarding RAM is disabled. If negative, discarding RAM is
> > - * required to work and cannot be disabled.
> > - */
> > -static int ram_block_discard_disabled;
> > +static unsigned int ram_block_discard_requirers;
> > +static unsigned int ram_block_discard_disablers;
>
> Requirer is not an English word, so perhaps use required_cnt and
> disabled_cnt?

I did a internet search back then and was not completely sure if it's 
okay. See

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/requirer

for example (not 100% trustworthy of course).

No strong opinion on the name (required_cnt/disabled_cnt is clearer).

> Also, uncoordinated require is unused, and therefore uncoordinated
> disable is also never going to block anything.  Does it make sense to
> keep it in the API?

Right, "ram_block_discard_require()" is not used yet. I am planning on 
using it in virtio-balloon context at some point, but can remove it for 
now to simplify.

ram_block_uncoordinated_discard_disable(), however, will block 
virtio-balloon already via ram_block_discard_is_disabled(). (yes, 
virtio-balloon is ugly)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb