From: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] Generic handling of multi-page exclusions
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:20:46 +0000
>>From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz>
>>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Generic handling of multi-page exclusions
>>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:47:17 +0200
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 07:06:34 +0000
>>> Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> > diff --git a/makedumpfile.h b/makedumpfile.h
>>>> >> index 951ed1b..dfad569 100644
>>>> >> --- a/makedumpfile.h
>>>> >> +++ b/makedumpfile.h
>>>> >> @@ -816,6 +816,13 @@ struct mem_map_data {
>>>> >> unsigned long long pfn_start;
>>>> >> unsigned long long pfn_end;
>>>> >> unsigned long mem_map;
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> + /*
>>>> >> + * for excluding multi-page regions
>>>> >> + */
>>>> >> + unsigned long exclude_pfn_start;
>>>> >> + unsigned long exclude_pfn_end;
>>>> >
>>>> >unsigned long long exclude_pfn_start;
>>>> >unsigned long long exclude_pfn_end;
>>>> >
>>>> >The integers representing page frame numbers need to be defined as
>>>> >unsigned long long for architectures where physical address can have
>>>> >64-bit length but unsigned long has 32-bit only, such as x86 PAE.
>>>> >
>>>> >Kumagai-san, I saw this sometimes in the past. How about introducing
>>>> >specific abstract type for page frame number like below?
>>>> >
>>>> >typedef unsigned long long pfn_t;
>>>>
>>>> Good idea! We should do it.
>>>
>>> Like the following patch?
>>>
>>> From 9f3f6876bf1e8c93690097c510dff9982651bfa5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz>
>>> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:40:31 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Introduce the pfn_t type
>>>
>>> Replace unsigned long long with pfn_t where:
>>>
>>> a. the variable denotes a PFN
>>> b. the variable is a number of pages
>>>
>>> The number of pages is converted to a pfn_t, because it is a result of
>>> subtracting two PFNs or incremented in a loop over a range of PFNs, so
>>> it can get as large as a PFN.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz>
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Only concern is that pfn_t could be too generic; could collide with
>>symbols from any other libraries. On kernel, I found that kvm and um
>>defines pfn_t.
>>
>>So, it's better to prefix pfn_t with the letters indicating that this
>>is relevant to makedumpfile.
>>
>>But I don't come up with good prefix...
>
> We don't need to be serious, just keeping identity is the important
> thing. So how about kdump_pfn_t or mdf_pfn_t?
> ("makedumpfile" is a long name and it hasn't a good shortening,
> it might be better to rename it :-P)
>
It seems to me the latter mdf_ is better.
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke
