On 22/11/2018 15:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.11.18 at 14:21, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> @@ -2184,24 +2184,29 @@ bool_t p2m_altp2m_lazy_copy(struct vcpu *v, paddr_t
>> gpa,
>> unsigned long mask;
>> mfn_t mfn;
>> int rv;
>> + bool ret;
>>
>> *ap2m = p2m_get_altp2m(v);
>>
>> mfn = get_gfn_type_access(*ap2m, gfn_x(gfn), &p2mt, &p2ma,
>> 0, &page_order);
>> - __put_gfn(*ap2m, gfn_x(gfn));
>>
>> + /* Entry already present in ap2m? Caller should handle the fault. */
>> if ( !mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) )
>> - return 0;
>> + {
>> + ret = false;
>> + goto put_ap2m;
>> + }
>>
>> mfn = get_gfn_type_access(hp2m, gfn_x(gfn), &p2mt, &p2ma,
>> P2M_ALLOC, &page_order);
>> - __put_gfn(hp2m, gfn_x(gfn));
>>
>> + /* Entry not present in hp2m? Caller should handle the fault. */
>> if ( mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) )
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - p2m_lock(*ap2m);
>> + {
>> + ret = false;
>> + goto put_hp2m;
> Wouldn't this better be named "put_gfn" (or "drop_gfn" to avoid the
> name collision with the function)?
No - I don't think so. We have two separate refs to drop, one from the
hp2m and one from the ap2m.
This is why the labels are named symmetrically.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
