Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 05/11] x86/mm: add HYPERVISOR_memory_op to acquire guest resources

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 26/10/17 16:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 26.10.17 at 17:32, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 26/10/17 16:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 17.10.17 at 15:24, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +    /* IN/OUT - If the tools domain is PV then, upon return, frame_list
> > > > +     *          will be populated with the MFNs of the resource.
> > > > +     *          If the tools domain is HVM then it is expected that, on
> > > > +     *          entry, frame_list will be populated with a list of GFNs
> > > > +     *          that will be mapped to the MFNs of the resource.
> > > > +     *          If -EIO is returned then the frame_list has only been
> > > > +     *          partially mapped and it is up to the caller to unmap all
> > > > +     *          the GFNs.
> > > > +     *          This parameter may be NULL if nr_frames is 0.
> > > > +     */
> > > > +    XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_ulong_t) frame_list;
> > > This is still xen_ulong_t, which I can live with, but then you shouldn't
> > > copy into / out of arrays of other types in acquire_resource() (the
> > > more that this is common code, and iirc xen_ulong_t and
> > > unsigned long aren't the same thing on ARM32).
> > xen_ulong_t is always 64-bit on Arm (32-bit and 64-bit). But shouldn't
> > we use xen_pfn_t here?
> I had put this question up earlier, but iirc Paul didn't like it.
I'd like to understand why Paul doesn't like it. We should never assume 
that a frame fit in xen_ulong_t. xen_pfn_t was exactly introduced for 
that purpose.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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