Re: [Xen-devel] [V6 PATCH 6.2/7] pvh dom0: Add and remove foreign pages

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.12.13 at 03:48, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Also, Jan may have an opinion about whether a teardown operation that
>> has to walk each p2m entry would have to be made preemptible.  I'm not
>> sure where we draw the line on such things.
> 
> Since at present teardown cleanup of foreign is not really that important
> as its only applicable to dom0, let me submit another patch for it on 
> Mon with few ideas. That would also keep this patch size reasonable,
> and keep you from having to look at the same code over and over. 
> 
> So, please take a look at the version below with above two fixes. If
> you approve it, i can resubmit the entire series rebased to latest 
> with your ack on Monday, and the series can go in while we resolve
> the p2m teardown.

Going through the patch again, I'm not seeing any loop being
added. Am I missing something here?

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> @@ -36,8 +36,6 @@
>  
>  #define atomic_read_ept_entry(__pepte)                              \
>      ( (ept_entry_t) { .epte = read_atomic(&(__pepte)->epte) } )
> -#define atomic_write_ept_entry(__pepte, __epte)                     \
> -    write_atomic(&(__pepte)->epte, (__epte).epte)
>  
>  #define is_epte_present(ept_entry)      ((ept_entry)->epte & 0x7)
>  #define is_epte_superpage(ept_entry)    ((ept_entry)->sp)
> @@ -46,6 +44,25 @@ static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
>      return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
>  }
>  
> +static inline void write_ept_entry(ept_entry_t *entryptr, ept_entry_t *new)

So why do you drop the "atomic_" prefix here?

Also the second parameter could be "const"...

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel