From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v7][RFC][PATCH 07/13] xen/x86/p2m: introduce
	p2m_check_reserved_device_memory
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:50:52 +0800
Message-ID: <544E076C.8020606@intel.com>
References: <1414136077-18599-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1414136077-18599-8-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<544A862B020000780004203A@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <544A862B020000780004203A@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: yang.z.zhang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2014/10/24 23:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.10.14 at 09:34, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> @@ -713,6 +713,19 @@ extern int arch_grant_map_page_identity(struct domain *d, unsigned long frame,
>>                                    bool_t writeable);
>>   extern int arch_grant_unmap_page_identity(struct domain *d, unsigned long frame);
>>
>> +/* Check if we are accessing rdm. */
>> +static inline int p2m_check_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start,
>> +                                                   xen_ulong_t nr, void *d)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned long *gfn = d;
>> +    xen_pfn_t end = start + nr;
>> +
>> +    if ( *gfn >= start && *gfn <= end )
>> +        return 1;
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>
> There is absolutely nothing in the function connecting it to its name.
> And the last parameter being void looks pretty bogus too. Both
> signs of it (again) being wrong to add such a function without at
> least one first caller.

Looks you hope I fold this into sequent patch, lets address this in that 
sequent patch as well.

Thanks
Tiejun

>
> Also the way you return from the function suggests the return
> type really ought to be bool_t. And instead of the last four lines in
> the function body you could again use a single simple return
> statement.
>
> Jan
>
>