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

Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][RFC][PATCH 04/13] hvmloader/util: get reserved device memory maps



On 2014/11/3 18:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.11.14 at 10:55, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014/11/3 17:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.11.14 at 10:32, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014/11/3 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.11.14 at 03:22, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014/10/31 16:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.10.14 at 03:20, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014/10/30 17:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.10.14 at 06:55, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014/10/29 17:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.10.14 at 07:54, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Looks I can remove those stuff from util.h and just add 'extern' to them
when we really need them.

Please stop thinking this way. Declarations for things defined in .c
files are to be present in headers, and the defining .c file has to
include that header (making sure declaration and definition are and
remain in sync). I hate having to again repeat my remark that you
shouldn't forget it's not application code that you're modifying.
Robust and maintainable code are a requirement in the hypervisor
(and, as said it being an extension of it, hvmloader). Which - just
to avoid any misunderstanding - isn't to say that this shouldn't also
apply to application code. It's just that in the hypervisor and kernel
(and certain other code system components) the consequences of
being lax are much more severe.

Okay. But currently, the pci.c file already include 'util.h' and
'<xen/memory.h>,

#include "util.h"
...
#include <xen/memory.h>

We can't redefine struct xen_reserved_device_memory in util.h.

Redefine? I said forward declare.

Seems we just need to declare hvm_get_reserved_device_memory_map() in
the head file, tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h,

unsigned int hvm_get_reserved_device_memory_map(void);

To me this looks very much like poor programming style, even if in
the context of hvmloader communicating information via global
variables rather than function arguments and return values is

Do you mean you don't like a global variable? But it can be use to get
RDM without more hypercall or function call in the context of hvmloader.

This argument which you brought up before, and which we commented
on before, is pretty pointless. We don't really care much about doing
one or two more hypercalls from hvmloader, unless these would be
long-running ones.


Another benefit to use a global variable is that we wouldn't allocate
xen_reserved_device_memory * N each time, and reduce some duplicated
codes, unless you mean I should define that as static inside in local.

Now this reason is indeed worth a consideration. How many times is
the data being needed/retrieved?

Currently there are two cases in tools/hvmloader, setup pci and build
e820 table. Each time, as you know we don't know how may entries we
should require, so we always allocate one instance then according to the
return value to allocate the proper instances to get that.

Hmm, two uses isn't really that bad, i.e. I'd then still be in favor of
a more "normal" interface.


Just go back here since I realize we always use mem_alloc(), which is pick from RESERVED_MEMORY, to allocate all buffer inside this hypercall caller in hvmloader, but unfortunately we have no any associated free function implementation in hvmloader, so if we call this multiple times this means it really waster more memory in RESERVED_MEMORY. So I still think one global variable should be fine.

Thanks
Tiejun


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


 


Rackspace

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