Re: [PATCH v1] xen/console: group pbuf under console field

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/06/2025 9:10 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.06.2025 21:49, dmkhn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmukhin@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Group all pbuf-related data structures under domain's console field.
> Fine with me in principle, as I was indeed wondering about the lack of
> grouping when the sub-struct was introduced, but ...
>
>> @@ -654,6 +648,12 @@ struct domain
>>  
>>      /* Console settings. */
>>      struct {
>> +        /* hvm_print_line() and guest_console_write() logging. */
>> +#define DOMAIN_PBUF_SIZE 200
>> +        char *pbuf;
>> +        unsigned int pbuf_idx;
>> +        spinlock_t pbuf_lock;
>> +
>>          /* Permission to take ownership of the physical console input. */
>>          bool input_allowed;
>>      } console;
> ... since all uses of the fields need touching anyway, can we perhaps
> think of giving the fields better names? I never understood what the
> 'p' in "pbuf" actually stands for, for example.

I always assumed it was Hungarian notation, so pointer.

As it's namespaced within .console, plain .buf, .idx and .lock names
work fine.

Separately, 200 is a silly and arbitrary number.  Furthermore the
allocation is unconditional, despite the fact that in !VERSBOSE builds,
domUs can't use this facility.  Also, where's the input buffer?

~Andrew