Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 01/13] x86/mm: export {get, put}_pg_owner

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29/03/17 10:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.03.17 at 23:11, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 27/03/2017 10:10, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> Prefix them with "mm_" and add declarations to asm-x86/mm.h.
>>>
>>> They will be needed when we split PV specific code out of x86/mm.c.
> Is that actually the case? They're about PV (target) domains, so
> I'd kind of expect them to move together with the PV-only code,
> even if the caller may not be PV.
>
>>> No functional change.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> I have to admit that I don't understand why they are called
>> {get,put}_pg_owner.  Perhaps very historical from Linux?
> I don't think any of this code has Linux origin.
>
>> They are nothing to do with pages, and get a reference on the domain.
> Depends on the perspective you take: For all of their callers,
> they have precisely that meaning.
>
>> I'd recommend s/pg_owner/domain/ so the function calls actually indicate
>> what object is having the reference taken on it.
> Well, to make clear what uses are legitimate, perhaps
> s/pg_owner/foreign_domain/ (if you really continue to think
> these should be renamed in the first place)? Using just "domain"
> pretty clearly results in too generic names. Perhaps additionally
> they should be prefixed mm_?

Sorry - I had intended my suggestion to be in combination with the mm_
prefixes, so mm_{get,put}_domain().

~Andrew

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