Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:03:17 +0000 | From | Zoltan Kiss <> | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] xen/grant-table: Avoid m2p_override during mapping |
| |
On 22/01/14 18:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > 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. Ok, I'll mention it. > > >>>> 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. You call set_phys_to_machine before calling m2p* functions.
Zoli
| |