Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09/14] xen: Introduce HAS_M2P config and use to protect mfn_to_gmfn call

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.05.19 at 16:04, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/05/2019 14:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 10.05.19 at 15:41, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The point here, we keep within the hypervisor the idea of what's valid or
>>> invalid. This allows us more flexibility on the value here (imagine we 
>>> decide to
>>> change the value of GFN_INVALID in the future...).
>> 
>> Exactly, and hence INVALID_GFN should not become visible to the
>> outside. Hence my request to use an all-ones value here.
> It is only visible if you put an exact value in the documentation. Your 
> suggestion is to put a exactly value and I would rather not see that.

I did specifically suggest to _not_ store INVALID_GFN here, but to
store 64-bit bits of ones. Note the difference between the two on
32-bit Arm.

>>>>> Well, it at least tell you the function can't work. So I think it is 
>>>>> still makes
>>>>> sense to have it.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>> You disagree because...?
>> 
>> Because of what I've said in my initial reply (still quoted above).
> 
> I still don't see the problem of unconditional log message. It is not really 
> the 
> first place we have that.
> 
>> 
>>> I hope you are aware, this is unlikely going to be printed as the code 
>>> should
>>> not be called.
>> 
>> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() then?
> 
> And still avoiding the printk?

Preferably yes; depends on how exactly you code the assertion.
If you follow the if()-ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()-return style we've
been using elsewhere, then no matter how you place the #else
or #endif the printk() will be compiled out.

Jan



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