[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
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |