On 2/4/25 2:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2025 14:12, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
@@ -160,6 +158,18 @@ static inline struct page_info *virt_to_page(const void *v)
pte_t * pt_walk(vaddr_t va, unsigned int *pte_level);
+static inline mfn_t vmap_to_mfn_(vaddr_t va)
Btw., for static functions (and variables) a prefixing underscore is
fine to use. Its identifiers that don't have file scope which shouldn't.
Should it be used a single underscore prefixing or a double one?
+{
+ pte_t *entry = pt_walk(va, NULL);
Oh, noticing the anomaly only here: Why would pt_walk() return a pointer
to a PTE, rather than the pte_t by value? All this does is encourage
open-coded accesses (even writes), when especially writes are supposed
to be going through pt_update().
I tried to play with forward declaration of pte_t to not introduce
circular dependency in the previous patch. It would be really better to return
pte_t by value, I will update that.
Thanks.
~Oleksii
