Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/mm: use existing 'pfn' in p2m_get_mem_access

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26/05/15 10:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.05.15 at 09:34, <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 'gfn' is not defined in p2m_get_mem_access() and this code compiles only
>> because of a coincidence: gfn_lock/gfn_unlock are currently macros which
>> don't use their second argument.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> index 1fd1194..18db9bd 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> @@ -1696,9 +1696,9 @@ int p2m_get_mem_access(struct domain *d, unsigned long 
>> pfn,
>>          return 0;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, 0);
>> +    gfn_lock(p2m, pfn, 0);
>>      mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, pfn, &t, &a, 0, NULL);
>> -    gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, 0);
>> +    gfn_unlock(p2m, pfn, 0);
> Looks okay from the perspective of fixing the immediate issue, but
> gets things into kind of an inconsistent state: What is named "pfn"
> here should really be named "gfn" imo, i.e. the renaming should be
> done the other way around.

Correct; gfn is the appropriate term. This entire function needs s/pfn/gfn/

As part of some other work, I am currently drafting a docs improvement
which will properly define and explain each of these terms.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel