Re: [patch 00/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 10:26:55AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE
> +	.kmap_atomic_pte = native_kmap_atomic_pte,
> +#else
> +	.kmap_atomic_pte = paravirt_nop,
> +#endif

This is ifdefing is quite ugly.  Shouldn't native_kmap_atomic_pte
just be a noop in the !CONFIG_HIGHPTE case?

> -void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
> +void *_kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type, pgprot_t prot)

We normally call our "secial" function __foo, not _foo.  But in this
case it really should have a more meaningfull name like
kmap_atomic_prot anyway.

> +void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
> +{
> +	return _kmap_atomic(page, type, kmap_prot);

And this one should probably be an inline.

> +static inline void *native_kmap_atomic_pte(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
> +{
> +	return kmap_atomic(page, type);
> +}
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +#define kmap_atomic_pte(page, type)	kmap_atomic(page, type)
> +#endif

This is all getting rather ugly just for your pagetable hackery.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/