Hi Federico,
On 04/08/2023 11:29, Federico Serafini wrote:
On 04/08/23 11:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 04/08/2023 10:38 am, Federico Serafini wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
index be2b10a391..e1d9b94007 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
@@ -5591,7 +5591,7 @@ int __init populate_pt_range(unsigned long
virt, unsigned long nr_mfns)
*
* It is an error to call with present flags over an unpopulated
range.
*/
-int modify_xen_mappings(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, unsigned
int nf)
+int modify_xen_mappings(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, unsigned
int flags)
I think both of these examples want to stay as nf (new flags). Flags on
its own is ambiguous in context, and nf is a common shorthand in our
pagetable code.
I guess you mean x86 code? I agree that 'flags' is ambiguous but...
And it will make the patch rather shorter.
~Andrew
The arm code has its own implementation of modify_xen_mappings()
which uses `flags`.
I put Stefano and Julien in CC, so that if everyone likes `nf` I can
propagate the change.
... I would not say I like the name 'nf'. I would prefer 'new_flags'.
Anyway, unlike arm, the x86 version of modify_xen_mappings() is quite
large. So I would be OK to switch the Arm code to use 'nf' (only in
modify_xen_mappings()) for the sake of avoid too much code churn.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
