Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:50:20 +0000 | From | Stefano Stabellini <> | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] xen/grant-table: Avoid m2p_override during mapping |
| |
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Zoltan Kiss wrote: > On 22/01/14 16:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Zoltan Kiss wrote: > > > @@ -121,7 +125,7 @@ static inline unsigned long mfn_to_pfn(unsigned long > > > mfn) > > > pfn = m2p_find_override_pfn(mfn, ~0); > > > } > > > > > > - /* > > > + /* > > > > Spurious change? > It removes a stray space from the original code. Not necessary, but if it's > there, I think we can keep it.
Usually cosmetic changes are done in a separate patch, or at the very least they are mentioned in the commit message.
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c > > > index 2ae8699..0060178 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c > > > @@ -872,15 +872,13 @@ static unsigned long mfn_hash(unsigned long mfn) > > > > > > /* Add an MFN override for a particular page */ > > > int m2p_add_override(unsigned long mfn, struct page *page, > > > - struct gnttab_map_grant_ref *kmap_op) > > > + struct gnttab_map_grant_ref *kmap_op, unsigned long pfn) > > > > Do we really need to add another additional parameter to > > m2p_add_override? > > I would just let m2p_add_override and m2p_remove_override call > > page_to_pfn again. It is not that expensive. > Yes, because that page_to_pfn can return something different. That's why the > v2 patches failed.
I am really curious: how can page_to_pfn return something different? I don't think is supposed to happen.
| |