[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8dbeb9ea-56c9-de30-4d5f-fc9c0ced6ac4@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:56:52 +0200
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: rename wrong named pfn related variables
On 16.06.2021 09:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> @@ -95,8 +95,8 @@ unsigned long *xen_p2m_addr __read_mostly;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_addr);
> unsigned long xen_p2m_size __read_mostly;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_size);
> -unsigned long xen_max_p2m_pfn __read_mostly;
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_max_p2m_pfn);
> +unsigned long xen_p2m_max_size __read_mostly;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_max_size);
Instead of renaming the exported variable (which will break consumers
anyway), how about dropping the apparently unneeded export at this
occasion? Further it looks to me as if xen_p2m_size and this variable
were actually always kept in sync, so I'd like to put up the question
of dropping one of the two.
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static pte_t *p2m_identity_pte;
> * can avoid scanning the whole P2M (which may be sized to account for
> * hotplugged memory).
> */
> -static unsigned long xen_p2m_last_pfn;
> +static unsigned long xen_p2m_pfn_limit;
As to the comment remark in patch 1: You don't alter the comment
here either, and "limit" still doesn't make clear whether that's an
inclusive or exclusive limit.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists