On 26/05/15 10:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 26.05.15 at 09:34, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote: >> 'gfn' is not defined in p2m_get_mem_access() and this code compiles only >> because of a coincidence: gfn_lock/gfn_unlock are currently macros which >> don't use their second argument. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> index 1fd1194..18db9bd 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> @@ -1696,9 +1696,9 @@ int p2m_get_mem_access(struct domain *d, unsigned long >> pfn, >> return 0; >> } >> >> - gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, 0); >> + gfn_lock(p2m, pfn, 0); >> mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, pfn, &t, &a, 0, NULL); >> - gfn_unlock(p2m, gfn, 0); >> + gfn_unlock(p2m, pfn, 0); > Looks okay from the perspective of fixing the immediate issue, but > gets things into kind of an inconsistent state: What is named "pfn" > here should really be named "gfn" imo, i.e. the renaming should be > done the other way around.
Correct; gfn is the appropriate term. This entire function needs s/pfn/gfn/ As part of some other work, I am currently drafting a docs improvement which will properly define and explain each of these terms. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
