Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] x86/arm/mm: use gfn instead of pfn in p2m_get_mem_access/p2m_set_mem_access

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 11:43 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.07.15 at 18:14, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 02/07/15 14:18, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> 'pfn' and 'start_pfn' are ambiguous, both these functions expect GFNs as 
> >> input.
> >> 
> >> On x86 the interface of p2m_set_mem_access() in p2m.c doesn't match the
> >> declaration in p2m-common.h as 'pfn' is being used instead of 'start_pfn'.
> >> 
> >> On ARM both p2m_set_mem_access and p2m_get_mem_access interfaces don't 
> >> match
> >> declarations from p2m-common.h: p2m_set_mem_access uses 'pfn' instead of
> >> 'start_pfn' and p2m_get_mem_access uses 'gpfn' instead of 'pfn'.
> >> 
> >> Convert p2m_get_mem_access/p2m_set_mem_access (and __p2m_get_mem_access on 
> >> ARM)
> >> interfaces to using gft_t instead of unsigned long and update all users of
> >> these functions.
> >> 
> >> There is also an issue in p2m_get_mem_access on x86: 'gfn' parameter 
> >> passed to
> >> gfn_lock/gfn_unlock is not defined. 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>
> > 
> > For the ARM bits:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Any chance to get an ARM maintainer ack on this one?

On the basis of Julien's R-by:
Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>



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