On 07/08/2023 10:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.08.2023 17:27, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The variable declared in the header file
'xen/arch/x86/include/asm/e820.h'
is shadowed by many function parameters, so it is renamed to avoid
these
violations.
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
---
This patch is similar to other renames done on previous patches, and
the
preferred strategy there was to rename the global variable. This one
has more occurrences that are spread in various files, but
the general pattern is the same.
Still I think it would be better done the other way around, and perhaps
in
more than a single patch. It looks like "many == 3", i.e.
- e820_add_range(), which is only ever called with "e820" as its
argument,
and hence the parameter could be dropped,
- e820_change_range_type(), which is in the same situation, and
- reserve_e820_ram(), which wants its parameter renamed.
Alternatively, if we really were to change the name of the global, we'd
want to take a more complete approach: Right now we have e820_raw[],
boot_e820[], and e820[]. We'd want them to follow a uniform naming
scheme
then (e820_ first or _e820 last), with the other part of the name
suitably
describing the purpose (which "map" doesn't do).
Jan
Besides the one you listed, there are these other occurrences:
- xen/arch/x86/mm.c:4678 in 'arch_memory_op' as local variable 'struct
e820entry'
- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/guest/hypervisor.h:55 in
'hypervisor_e820_fixup'
- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/pv/shim.h:88 in 'pv_shim_fixup'
- xen/arch/x86/setup.c:689 in 'kexec_reserve_area'
We can take the first approach you suggested (which was my original
attempt, but then upon feedback on other
patches I reworked this patch before submitting). My doubt about it was
that it would introduce a naming
inconsistency with other e820-related objects/types. Anyway, if e820_map
is not a good name, could e820_arr be it?
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
