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'
This probably wants renaming; my suggestion would be just "e" here.
Ok
- 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'
These can likely again have their parameters dropped, for it only
ever being the "e820" global which is passed. (Really I think in such
cases the names being the same should be permitted.)
- xen/arch/x86/setup.c:689 in 'kexec_reserve_area'
This surely can quite sensibly have boot_e820 use moved into the
function itself.
Ok, although your suggestion of breaking these renames/deletions in more
than one patch may not be applicable,
as 'kexec_reserve_area' calls 'reserve_e820_ram', which in turn calls
'e820_change_range_type'.
Similarly, the call stack containing 'e820_add_range' includes other
calls to the modified functions, so
effectively it's best to drop the parameter everywhere all at once to
prevent accidental mistakes.
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?
But how does "arr" describe the purpose? I would have suggested a name,
but none I can think of (e820_real, e820_final) I'd be really happy
with.
Just e820 is pretty likely the best name we can have here.
Ok, so perhaps the best way is using the strategy above, although I'm
curious why in other places this
was not the preferred alternative (as the global may be dropped or the
callers may use a e820map other
than the global one, but here I recognize my lack of knowledge on the
internals of Xen).
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
