Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] x86/mm: Introduce and use l?e_{get, from}_mfn()

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/25/2017 04:00 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 02:14 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> This avoids the explicit boxing/unboxing of mfn_t in relevant codepaths.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
>> index 242903f..8463d71 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,12 @@
>>  #define l4e_get_pfn(x)             \
>>      ((unsigned long)(((x).l4 & (PADDR_MASK&PAGE_MASK)) >> PAGE_SHIFT))
>>  
>> +/* Get mfn mapped by pte (mfn_t). */
>> +#define l1e_get_mfn(x) _mfn(l1e_get_pfn(x))
>> +#define l2e_get_mfn(x) _mfn(l2e_get_pfn(x))
>> +#define l3e_get_mfn(x) _mfn(l3e_get_pfn(x))
>> +#define l4e_get_mfn(x) _mfn(l4e_get_pfn(x))
> 
> Hmm, "get" and "put" have specific meanings elsewhere in the code that
> don't apply here, but the context of which is confusing enough that
> people might think they apply.
> 
> What if we did "mfn_from_l1e" instead, to be symmetric with l1e_from_mfn()?

/me notices all the other #defines of the "lNe_get_FOO" variety

Nevermind - I'm not a fan but it looks like the ship has already sailed;
not worth the effort of getting it back into port.

 -George

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