On 06.06.2025 21:49, dm...@proton.me wrote:
> From: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com>
> 
> Group all pbuf-related data structures under domain's console field.

Fine with me in principle, as I was indeed wondering about the lack of
grouping when the sub-struct was introduced, but ...

> @@ -654,6 +648,12 @@ struct domain
>  
>      /* Console settings. */
>      struct {
> +        /* hvm_print_line() and guest_console_write() logging. */
> +#define DOMAIN_PBUF_SIZE 200
> +        char *pbuf;
> +        unsigned int pbuf_idx;
> +        spinlock_t pbuf_lock;
> +
>          /* Permission to take ownership of the physical console input. */
>          bool input_allowed;
>      } console;

... since all uses of the fields need touching anyway, can we perhaps
think of giving the fields better names? I never understood what the
'p' in "pbuf" actually stands for, for example. My suggestion would
be to replace "pbuf" by "glog" (for "guest logging"), but surely there
are alternatives.

Jan

Reply via email to