Re: [PATCH v4] x86/arm/mm: use gfn instead of pfn in p2m_get_mem_access/p2m_set_mem_access

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> writes:

> On 07/02/2015 12:25 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>> At 12:09 +0100 on 02 Jul (1435838956), Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 02/07/15 11:48, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> Now in p2m_set_mem_access(), rather than just using an unsigned long in
>>>> the loop iterating over gfns, you do this thing where you convert gfn_t
>>>> to unsigned long, add one, and then convert it back to gfn_t again.
>>>>
>>>> I can't see any comments in v3 that suggest you doing that, and it seems
>>>> a bit clunky.  Is that really necessary?  Wouldn't it be better to
>>>> declare a local variable?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not strongly opinionated on this one, it just seems a bit strange.
>>>>
>>>> Everything else looks good, thanks.
>>>
>>> Looping over {g,m,p}fn_t's is indeed awkward, as the compiler tricks for
>>> typesafety don't allow for simply adding 1 to a typesafe variable.
>>>
>>> In a cases like this, I think it is acceptable to keep a unsigned long
>>> shadow variable and manipulate it is a plain integer.  The eventual
>>> _gfn() required to pass it further down the callchain will help to
>>> visually re-enforce the appropriate type.
>>>
>>> After all, the entire point of these typesafes are to try and avoid
>>> accidentally mixing up the different address spaces, but a function
>>> which takes a typesafe, loops over a subset and passes the same typesafe
>>> further down can probably be trusted to DTRT, catching errors at review
>>> time. 
>>>
>>> Off the top of my head, the only functions which would normally expect
>>> to mix and match the typesafes are the pagetable walking ones.
>> 
>> It should be easy enough to extend the macros to define a
>> gfn_inc(&gfn_t) operator for this kind of thing.
>
> I was thinking that -- although in this case you'd still need to un-pack
> it to do the loop exit conditional.  To really make things pretty you'd
> want a for_gfn_range() macro or something like that that takes a start
> gfn and a number.
>
> But that's really starting to be feature creep for this patch, which is
> why I didn't want to suggest it on v4. :-)

Well, if you look at what I was fixing in v1 ... :-)

I suggest we add a local unsigned long here and close the deal, when
{g,m,p}fn_{inc,dec} macros are available we'll get rid of it.

-- 
  Vitaly