On 3/21/2017 9:49 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:
-----Original Message-----
[snip]
+ if ( (first_gfn > 0) || (data->flags == 0 && rc == 0) )
+ {
+ struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
+
+ while ( read_atomic(&p2m->ioreq.entry_count) &&
+ first_gfn <= p2m->max_mapped_pfn )
+ {
+ /* Iterate p2m table for 256 gfns each time. */
+ last_gfn = first_gfn + 0xff;
+
Might be worth a comment here to sat that p2m_finish_type_change()
limits last_gfn appropriately because it kind of looks wrong to be blindly
calling it with first_gfn + 0xff. Or perhaps, rather than passing last_gfn,
pass a
'max_nr' parameter of 256 instead. Then you can drop last_gfn altogether. If
you prefer the parameters as they are then at least limit the scope of
last_gfn to this while loop.
Thanks for your comments, Paul. :)
Well, setting last_gfn with first_gfn+0xff looks a bit awkward. But why
using a 'max_nr' with a magic number, say 256, looks better? Or any
other benefits? :-)
Well, to my eyes calling it max_nr in the function would make it clear it's a
limit rather than a definite count and then passing 256 in the call would make
it clear that it is the chosen batch size.
Does that make sense?
Sounds reasonable. Thanks! :-)
Yu
Paul
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
