Re: [XenPPC] [PATCH 4 of 6] [PATCH] xen: implement guest_physmap_{add/remove}_page for ppc

[Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

* Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-02-22 16:20]:
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 18:17 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
> > @@ -504,17 +508,15 @@ unsigned long mfn_to_gmfn(struct domain 
> >          mfn < (rma_mfn + (1 << d->arch.rma_order)))
> >          return mfn - rma_mfn;
> > 
> > -    /* Extent? */
> > -    cur_pfn = 1UL << d->arch.rma_order;
> > -    list_for_each_entry (pe, &d->arch.extent_list, pe_list) {
> > -        uint pe_pages = 1UL << pe->order;
> > -        uint b_mfn = page_to_mfn(pe->pg);
> > -        uint e_mfn = b_mfn + pe_pages;
> > -
> > -        if (mfn >= b_mfn && mfn < e_mfn) {
> > +    /* check extents (cpu-defined contiguous chunks after RMA) */
> > +    cur_pfn = 1UL << d->arch.rma_order; /* start looking after RMA */
> > +    for ( ; cur_pfn < d->max_pages; cur_pfn += ext_nrpages )
> > +    {
> > +        uint b_mfn = d->arch.p2m[cur_pfn];
> > +        uint e_mfn = b_mfn + ext_nrpages;
> > +
> > +        if (mfn >= b_mfn && mfn < e_mfn)
> >              return cur_pfn + (mfn - b_mfn);
> > -        }
> > -        cur_pfn += pe_pages;
> >      }
> >      return INVALID_M2P_ENTRY;
> >  } 
> 
> I think you're splitting these patches up a lot more than necessary (to
> the point I've having a hard time understanding them). Also, the above
> code is just removed by the next patch! If you combine 4 and 5 I think
> it will actually be smaller and easier to understand.

OK

> 
> I didn't realize these were just RFC. When you resubmit, could you put a
> little more description in each commit message?

Yeah, I should have put RFC in the subject.  I'll expand the
descriptions in the patches as well.


-- 
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253   T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel