Messages in this thread | | | From | Juergen Gross <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: rename wrong named pfn related variables | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:43:22 +0200 |
| |
On 16.06.21 11:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 16.06.2021 09:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >> --- a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c >> @@ -95,8 +95,8 @@ unsigned long *xen_p2m_addr __read_mostly; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_addr); >> unsigned long xen_p2m_size __read_mostly; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_size); >> -unsigned long xen_max_p2m_pfn __read_mostly; >> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_max_p2m_pfn); >> +unsigned long xen_p2m_max_size __read_mostly; >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_max_size); > > Instead of renaming the exported variable (which will break consumers > anyway), how about dropping the apparently unneeded export at this > occasion?
Why do you think it isn't needed? It is being referenced via the inline function __pfn_to_mfn() in arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h. And __pfn_to_mfn() is used via lots of other inline functions and macros.
> Further it looks to me as if xen_p2m_size and this variable > were actually always kept in sync, so I'd like to put up the question > of dropping one of the two.
Hmm, should be possible, yes.
> >> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static pte_t *p2m_identity_pte; >> * can avoid scanning the whole P2M (which may be sized to account for >> * hotplugged memory). >> */ >> -static unsigned long xen_p2m_last_pfn; >> +static unsigned long xen_p2m_pfn_limit; > > As to the comment remark in patch 1: You don't alter the comment > here either, and "limit" still doesn't make clear whether that's an > inclusive or exclusive limit.
Oh, indeed. Will fix that.
Juergen [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |