Hi Jan, On 22/08/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.17 at 16:23, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:--- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h @@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ static inline bool_t mfn_eq(mfn_t x, mfn_t y) return mfn_x(x) == mfn_x(y); }+#define maddr_to_mfn(maddr) _mfn(paddr_to_pfn(maddr)) +#define mfn_to_maddr(mfn) pfn_to_paddr(mfn_x(mfn)) + TYPE_SAFE(unsigned long, gfn); #define PRI_gfn "05lx" #define INVALID_GFN _gfn(~0UL) @@ -130,6 +133,9 @@ static inline bool_t gfn_eq(gfn_t x, gfn_t y) return gfn_x(x) == gfn_x(y); } +#define gaddr_to_gfn(gaddr) _gfn(paddr_to_pfn(gaddr)) +#define gfn_to_gaddr(gfn) pfn_to_paddr(gfn_x(gfn)) + TYPE_SAFE(unsigned long, pfn); #define PRI_pfn "05lx" #define INVALID_PFN (~0UL)Hmm, if you want this in common code, I think this needs to be correct from a more abstract perspective, i.e. not just for ARM and x86. In general I don't think we can assume machine, physical, and guest addresses to all be the same width (which the uses above imply). IOW I think these would better stay arch-specific, and if you want to use them in common code you'll need to add x86 variants.
I will do that. Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
