On 13/03/2019 15:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.19 at 16:48, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13/03/2019 15:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 13.03.19 at 16:24, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2019 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18.02.19 at 12:36, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
>>>>>> @@ -321,10 +321,8 @@ struct page_info *get_page_from_gva(struct vcpu *v,
>> vaddr_t va,
>>>>>> #define SHARED_M2P_ENTRY (~0UL - 1UL)
>>>>>> #define SHARED_M2P(_e) ((_e) == SHARED_M2P_ENTRY)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -/* Xen always owns P2M on ARM */
>>>>>> +/* We don't have a M2P on Arm */
>>>>>> #define set_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn, pfn) do { (void) (mfn), (void)(pfn); }
>> while (0)
>>>>>> -#define mfn_to_gmfn(_d, mfn) (mfn)
>>>>> So is the plan to remove the other macro from Arm then as well?
>>>> Do you mean mfn_to_gfn? If so it does not exist on Arm.
>>> No, I mean the one in context above - set_gpfn_from_mfn().
>> It is used in common code, so we would need to #idef the caller.
> Hmm, right, such #ifdef-ary would be undesirable (and two out of
> the three common code callers would need it.
>
>> I think it is better to provide a NOP implementation. Could be moved
>> somewhere
>> in the common header though. Any opinions?
> This would perhaps be better, now that you have HAVE_M2P.
Given that "having an M2P" is now an x86-specific concept, I think
phasing set_gpfn_from_mfn()'s use out of common code is the way to go.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
