Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] x86/arm/mm: use gfn instead of pfn in p2m_get_mem_access/p2m_set_mem_access

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 12:32 +0100 on 02 Jul (1435840328), George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/02/2015 12:25 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 12:09 +0100 on 02 Jul (1435838956), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 02/07/15 11:48, George Dunlap wrote:
> >>> Now in p2m_set_mem_access(), rather than just using an unsigned long in
> >>> the loop iterating over gfns, you do this thing where you convert gfn_t
> >>> to unsigned long, add one, and then convert it back to gfn_t again.
> >>>
> >>> I can't see any comments in v3 that suggest you doing that, and it seems
> >>> a bit clunky.  Is that really necessary?  Wouldn't it be better to
> >>> declare a local variable?
> >>>
> >>> I'm not strongly opinionated on this one, it just seems a bit strange.
> >>>
> >>> Everything else looks good, thanks.
> >>
> >> Looping over {g,m,p}fn_t's is indeed awkward, as the compiler tricks for
> >> typesafety don't allow for simply adding 1 to a typesafe variable.
> >>
> >> In a cases like this, I think it is acceptable to keep a unsigned long
> >> shadow variable and manipulate it is a plain integer.  The eventual
> >> _gfn() required to pass it further down the callchain will help to
> >> visually re-enforce the appropriate type.
> >>
> >> After all, the entire point of these typesafes are to try and avoid
> >> accidentally mixing up the different address spaces, but a function
> >> which takes a typesafe, loops over a subset and passes the same typesafe
> >> further down can probably be trusted to DTRT, catching errors at review
> >> time. 
> >>
> >> Off the top of my head, the only functions which would normally expect
> >> to mix and match the typesafes are the pagetable walking ones.
> > 
> > It should be easy enough to extend the macros to define a
> > gfn_inc(&gfn_t) operator for this kind of thing.
> 
> I was thinking that -- although in this case you'd still need to un-pack
> it to do the loop exit conditional.  To really make things pretty you'd
> want a for_gfn_range() macro or something like that that takes a start
> gfn and a number.
> 
> But that's really starting to be feature creep for this patch, which is
> why I didn't want to suggest it on v4. :-)

Oh, quite. :)

Tim.

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