Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/mem_sharing: introduce and use page_lock_memshr instead of page_lock

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 29.04.19 at 18:35, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On 26.04.19 at 19:21, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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).

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel