lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/10] xen/p2m: change p2m_missing_* to p2m_identity_*
    On 12/22/2010 06:59 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 02:41:23PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    >> On 12/21/2010 01:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    >>> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@kernel.org>
    >>>
    >>> We are going to alter how we think about P2M. Most of the
    >>> P2M contains MFN, and areas that are not populated are
    >>> considered to be "missing". Missing means that the PFN
    >>> is either not set for this guest (not have that much memory
    >>> allocated) or is under the balloon driver ownership.
    >>>
    >>> We are instead now going to think of those not populated
    >>> areas as "identity." Meaning that that the PFN for which
    >>> we would get the p2m_identity we will provide the the PFN
    >>> value back instead of P2M_MISSING. Essentially treating
    >>> those regions as PFN==MFN.
    >>>
    >> This renames missing -> identity, but does it actually change the
    >> functionality? Doesn't it just leave it being misnamed? It would
    >> probably be better to fold in the actual identity implementation as well.
    > You sure? It would be a lot of changes in one patch. This patch is
    > a nop - so no functional changes except the name change.
    >
    > Let me annotate the git tree to mention this.

    Yeah, I'm in two minds. I like small single-purpose patches, but the
    rename really does leave things v. misnamed. I guess it doesn't really
    matter for one commit, so long as its still bisectable (and the commit
    comment makes it clear that the name is misleading).

    >>> mid_mfn_mfn = virt_to_mfn(mid_mfn);
    >>> - if (cmpxchg(top_mfn_p, missing_mfn, mid_mfn_mfn) != missing_mfn)
    >>> + if (cmpxchg(top_mfn_p, identity_mfn, mid_mfn_mfn) !=
    >>> + identity_mfn)
    >> Don't wrap this.
    > Checkpatch.pl was unhappy without it. I can ignore this.

    Checkpatch is generally wrong on the subject of long lines.

    J



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-22 21:39    [W:0.021 / U:0.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site