[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Hi Andrew,

On 13/03/2019 17:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 13/03/2019 15:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
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.

Given that "having an M2P" is now an x86-specific concept, I think
phasing set_gpfn_from_mfn()'s use out of common code is the way to go.

So you never expect other architecture to use the M2P?

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.