>>> On 09.05.17 at 11:44, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 09/05/17 22:22, Xiong Zhang wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >> @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ static int ept_invalidate_emt_range(struct p2m_domain >> *p2m, >> * - zero if no adjustment was done, >> * - a positive value if at least one adjustment was done. >> */ >> -static int resolve_misconfig(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn) >> +static int ept_resolve_misconfig(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn) > > I think while we're renaming this I'd rename this to ept_do_recalc().
Which gets me to ask (once again) what purpose the ept_ prefix has for a static function. I'd rather see this called do_recalc(), and the p2m-pt variant could be left unchanged altogether. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
