From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Add flag to start info regarding virtual mapped p2m list Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: <54F59431.2050802@suse.com> References: <1425374993-32028-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <54F59ABD02000078000658FB@suse.com> <54F58DA1.5000401@suse.com> <54F5A0920200007800065932@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YSkYW-0001YR-HD for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:00:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54F5A0920200007800065932@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: keir@xen.org, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, david.vrabel@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/03/2015 11:52 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.03.15 at 11:32, wrote: >> On 03/03/2015 11:27 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Also I'm not particularly happy with the name, as it suggests to be >>> a statement about the initial P2M the guest gets handed - yet that >>> is always virtually mapped. SIF_PERMANENT_VIRT_P2M is getting a >>> little long I'm afraid, so I'm looking for better suggestions. >> >> SIF_VIRT_KERNEL_P2M? >> SIF_FLAT_P2M? > > Neither reflects that this is not a statement about the initial P2M. What about SIF_VIRT_P2M_4TOOLS? At least this variant would give a hint regarding the consumer of the p2m. Anybody wanting to know more should probably read the comment. :-) Juergen