From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/xen: Clarification to terms used in hypervisor memory management Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:50:25 +0100 Message-ID: <55670F11.9030603@citrix.com> References: <1432812889-26902-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <20150528122506.GC24442@deinos.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150528122506.GC24442@deinos.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 28/05/15 13:25, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 12:34 +0100 on 28 May (1432816489), Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Memory management is hard[citation needed]. Furthermore, it isn't helped by >> the inconsistent use of terms through the code, or that some terms have >> changed meaning over time. >> >> Describe the currently-used terms in a more practical fashon, so new code has >> a concrete reference. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper > Acked-by: Tim Deegan , with one reservation. > >> + * - Phase out all use of gpfn/gmfn where it pertains to pfn or mfn. > I think you mean s/gpfn/gfn/, which I agree with. gmfn I'm not so > sure of. Shadow code uses variants on gmfn/smfn to denote pairs of > mfns (the guest's pagetable and its shadow), which I think is > defensible. That was my intended meaning of "where it pertains to pfn or mfn", although I suppose I should have gone with my original sentence of "except in the shadow code, where gmfn has a distinct meaning". ~Andrew