Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next 9/9] xen: Remove mfn_to_gmfn macro

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.03.19 at 16:48, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 13/03/2019 15:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 13.03.19 at 16:24, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2019 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18.02.19 at 12:36, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
>>>>> @@ -321,10 +321,8 @@ struct page_info *get_page_from_gva(struct vcpu *v, 
> vaddr_t va,
>>>>>    #define SHARED_M2P_ENTRY         (~0UL - 1UL)
>>>>>    #define SHARED_M2P(_e)           ((_e) == SHARED_M2P_ENTRY)
>>>>>    
>>>>> -/* Xen always owns P2M on ARM */
>>>>> +/* We don't have a M2P on Arm */
>>>>>    #define set_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn, pfn) do { (void) (mfn), (void)(pfn); } 
> while (0)
>>>>> -#define mfn_to_gmfn(_d, mfn)  (mfn)
>>>>
>>>> So is the plan to remove the other macro from Arm then as well?
>>>
>>> Do you mean mfn_to_gfn? If so it does not exist on Arm.
>> 
>> No, I mean the one in context above - set_gpfn_from_mfn().
> 
> It is used in common code, so we would need to #idef the caller.

Hmm, right, such #ifdef-ary would be undesirable (and two out of
the three common code callers would need it.

> I think it is better to provide a NOP implementation. Could be moved 
> somewhere 
> in the common header though. Any opinions?

This would perhaps be better, now that you have HAVE_M2P.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel