On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 29.04.19 at 18:35, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 26.04.19 at 19:21, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> >> > @@ -2030,12 +2030,11 @@ static inline bool
> >> > current_locked_page_ne_check(struct page_info *page) {
> >> > #define current_locked_page_ne_check(x) true
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > -int page_lock(struct page_info *page)
> >> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PV) || defined(CONFIG_HAS_MEM_SHARING)
> >> > +static int _page_lock(struct page_info *page)
> >>
> >> As per above, personally I'm against introducing
> >> page_{,un}lock_memshr(), as that makes the abuse even more
> >> look like proper use. But if this was to be kept this way, may I
> >> ask that you switch int -> bool in the return types at this occasion?
> >
> > Switching them to bool would be fine. Replacing them with something
> > saner is unfortunately out-of-scope at the moment. Unless someone has
> > a specific solution that can be put in place. I don't have one.
>
> I've outlined a solution already: Make a mem-sharing private variant
> of page_{,un}lock(), derived from the PV ones (but with pieces
> dropped you don't want/need).
Well, that's what I already did here in this patch. No?
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
