Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2] x86/ioreq server: Fix XenGT couldn't reboot when XenGT use p2m_ioreq_server p2m_type

["Zhang, Xiong Y" <xiong.y.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

> >>> On 09.05.17 at 11:44, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 09/05/17 22:22, Xiong Zhang wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> >> @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ static int ept_invalidate_emt_range(struct
> p2m_domain *p2m,
> >>   * - zero if no adjustment was done,
> >>   * - a positive value if at least one adjustment was done.
> >>   */
> >> -static int resolve_misconfig(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn)
> >> +static int ept_resolve_misconfig(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long
> gfn)
> >
> > I think while we're renaming this I'd rename this to ept_do_recalc().
> 
> Which gets me to ask (once again) what purpose the ept_ prefix
> has for a static function. I'd rather see this called do_recalc(), and
> the p2m-pt variant could be left unchanged altogether.
> 
[Zhang, Xiong Y] As all the functions with p2m have ept_ prefix in
p2m-ept.c and have p2m_pt_ prefix in p2m-pt.c, then I guess there
may be a potential rule to name these functions. If there isn't such 
rule, I will keep their name unchanged. Thanks.
> Jan


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