On 16.06.2021 09:30, Juergen Gross wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c > @@ -95,8 +95,8 @@ unsigned long *xen_p2m_addr __read_mostly; > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_addr); > unsigned long xen_p2m_size __read_mostly; > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_size); > -unsigned long xen_max_p2m_pfn __read_mostly; > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_max_p2m_pfn); > +unsigned long xen_p2m_max_size __read_mostly; > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_p2m_max_size);
Instead of renaming the exported variable (which will break consumers anyway), how about dropping the apparently unneeded export at this occasion? Further it looks to me as if xen_p2m_size and this variable were actually always kept in sync, so I'd like to put up the question of dropping one of the two. > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static pte_t *p2m_identity_pte; > * can avoid scanning the whole P2M (which may be sized to account for > * hotplugged memory). > */ > -static unsigned long xen_p2m_last_pfn; > +static unsigned long xen_p2m_pfn_limit; As to the comment remark in patch 1: You don't alter the comment here either, and "limit" still doesn't make clear whether that's an inclusive or exclusive limit. Jan
