[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 00/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 10:26:55AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE
> +     .kmap_atomic_pte = native_kmap_atomic_pte,
> +#else
> +     .kmap_atomic_pte = paravirt_nop,
> +#endif

This is ifdefing is quite ugly.  Shouldn't native_kmap_atomic_pte
just be a noop in the !CONFIG_HIGHPTE case?

> -void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
> +void *_kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type, pgprot_t prot)

We normally call our "secial" function __foo, not _foo.  But in this
case it really should have a more meaningfull name like
kmap_atomic_prot anyway.

> +void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
> +{
> +     return _kmap_atomic(page, type, kmap_prot);

And this one should probably be an inline.

> +static inline void *native_kmap_atomic_pte(struct page *page, enum km_type 
> type)
> +{
> +     return kmap_atomic(page, type);
> +}
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +#define kmap_atomic_pte(page, type)  kmap_atomic(page, type)
> +#endif

This is all getting rather ugly just for your pagetable hackery.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel