[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312181514510.8667@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:15:19 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
<mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>, <jbeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 08/12] xen/pvh: MMU changes for PVH
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > @@ -1834,6 +1845,9 @@ static void convert_pfn_mfn(void *v)
> > > pte_t *pte = v;
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > + if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > /* All levels are converted the same way, so just treat them
> > > as ptes. */
> > > for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PTE; i++)
> >
> > This is getting pretty bad.
> > Can we find a way to refactor xen_setup_kernel_pagetable so that we
> > don't need all this? Maybe we need a new function?
>
> Is it that bad? Doing a copy of xen_setup_kernel_pagetable just
> for PVH strikes me as error prone. Having the checks in the
> functions that xen_setup_kernel_pagetable is much easier and
> nicer I think.
>
> Maybe if we did a big 'if (xen_feature(XEN..)' inside of
> xen_setup_kernel_pagetable that would be easier?
Yes, that should make things clearer.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists